Unfortunately, I can't say I am surprised:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-greenhouse-idUSBRE8AJ0II20121120
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-greenhouse-idUSBRE8AJ0II20121120
Very bad news...expected but very bad. At 390.9 PPM, we are obviously crossing the thresh hold that is beyond reversal.
"
Between 2.6 to 5.3 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch, mean annual temperatures on this island were 34 degrees Fahrenheit (19 degrees Celsius) higher than today. But CO2 concentrations were only slightly more elevated than they are now.
“Our findings indicate that CO2 levels of approximately 400 parts per million are sufficient to produce mean annual temperatures in the High Arctic of approximately 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F),” explains UCB expert Ashley Ballantyne.
“As temperatures approach 0 degrees Celsius, it becomes exceedingly difficult to maintain permanent sea and glacial ice in the Arctic,” adds the expert, who holds an appointment at the UCB Geological Sciences Department. "
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Curr...to-Trigger-Climate-Tipping-Point-178868.shtml
Guess we will truly know in a century or so...as that will be when the extra CO2 might begin to break down.
"
Between 2.6 to 5.3 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch, mean annual temperatures on this island were 34 degrees Fahrenheit (19 degrees Celsius) higher than today. But CO2 concentrations were only slightly more elevated than they are now.
“Our findings indicate that CO2 levels of approximately 400 parts per million are sufficient to produce mean annual temperatures in the High Arctic of approximately 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F),” explains UCB expert Ashley Ballantyne.
“As temperatures approach 0 degrees Celsius, it becomes exceedingly difficult to maintain permanent sea and glacial ice in the Arctic,” adds the expert, who holds an appointment at the UCB Geological Sciences Department. "
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Curr...to-Trigger-Climate-Tipping-Point-178868.shtml
Guess we will truly know in a century or so...as that will be when the extra CO2 might begin to break down.
This topic was the focus of the "idea" I had the other day but didn't know where to post it...So here goes, and please refrain from laughing until....well, until you can't hold it in any longer I guess~
How about using polystyrene (commonly referred to as "styrafoam" - a petroleum based product) to artificially expand arctic sea ice and create an artificial reflector of sorts?
Ok! You may commence laughing now!
How about using polystyrene (commonly referred to as "styrafoam" - a petroleum based product) to artificially expand arctic sea ice and create an artificial reflector of sorts?
Ok! You may commence laughing now!
Well that doesn't solve the CO2 issue, but could possibly work for warming. Easier might be to pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere though. Geoengineering isn't very popular though for potential risks that come with it and because at this point most agree prevention is still possible- that should really be the focus in my opinion.
I am not laughing, as the basic premise makes sense. We all should know by now that light colors reflect solar radiation (heat), while darker colors absorb it....one of the main reasons losing an Ice cap eventually becomes self perpetuating.
Might I suggest that something less toxic, but equally reflective be used (likely less expensive as well)...yet still, the engineering would be extreme to say the least.
Just an idea. I couldn't help touting "petroleum" for obvious reasons. Seeing as it is one of the primary culprits heh.
And you're right of course. It would be a monumental engineering feat....along the lines of landing on the moon! :smug:
Edit: And doing so wouldn't necessarily help the native habitat (in the short term anyway).
Last edited:
Basically the same as what you said- it reflects light back. It has proven to have said effect due to volcanic eruptions that released such gas into the stratosphere. We are pretty sure if not completely sure it works- it is just a matter of whether we are willing to artificially do it (and risk overly cooling the planet, etc.). As I said earlier, I think prevention should really be the primary focus right now.
I have to chuckle at the complete separation of truth and utility here. The petroleum companies lobby hard to prevent any measures that might reduce CO2 emission, while at the same time relishing the new access to the arctic because of the melting ice. When it becomes to late to stop damaging climate change there will be nobody to say 'I told you so' to because the deniers have an agenda rather than evidence.
Nobody here said anything about "politically feasible"!....From what I've also heard the oil companies can't wait to drill the newly acquired lands, but I'm not at all certain truth or utility are absent.
Okay, the theory and the evidence for climate change caused by man made CO2 are there and well known, but why hasn't it had the required effect on policy? Is it lack of ideas, inertia or a wealth of vested interest that keep us on the path to damaging climate change? It could be basic change theory, that to bring about the desired change we need a positive vision of a low carbon economy, rather than hair-shirts or worse.
The problem is that it is a global issue meaning logistically, it is very hard to combat. No one country can change their policy alone and solve the issue altogether, especially over the long run. They all know that, so they don't want to possibly hurt their economies while the rest are still polluting and in the end hurting everyone anyway. Even if the US and West were on board, the hardest part in all this is probably getting China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc. on board too.
It hasn't effected policy in some countries because people are rightly sceptical about man caused warming/change.
I'm not a climate scientist but I know bull-sh*t artists when I hear them.
I'm supposed to believe that a global political organization which has been trying for years to redistribute wealth and is now pushing for laws to do exactly that due to AGW is motivated by science and not by politics or greed.
The few times I have ever seen or heard a debate between an AGW proponent scientist and a sceptic scientist, what I have always heard is the AGW proponent refuse to even address the points and concerns of the sceptic and I'm supposed to believe that that is acceptable behavior within the scientific community. In fact, the behavior and attitudes exibited by the pro AGW scientists I've seen or heard interviewed has been infantile and bordering on bullying. They essentially say "I say it is so and anyone who disagrees is stupid. Take my word for it." That's religion, not science.
The sun is in a hot cycle right now and we've had increased volcanic activity but I'm supposed to believe that it's man that is causing the problem, if you even believe there is a problem.
I'm supposed to believe that it's OK for scientists to alter data because they "know" something is true so the ends justify the means.
As I said, I'm not a climate scientist but I can recognize politically motivated bullsh*t when I hear it. The United States government is very aware of the fact that many Americans share my scepticism and they are currently unwilling to do anything extreme.
My advice to the scientists who believe in AGW is if they don't want to be treated as political operatives then they should stop acting like political operatives.
Ever stop to think about the reasons that scientists tend to ignore much of the Hypothesis put forth by what we call the "Skeptics"?
Those things you did bring up, Solar Cycles, Volcanism, have been not just addressed, nut incorporated into the study of our climate...as they are valid components in any detailed study. Those things often cited by skeptics however, that are disproven or hold no true value are generally left out due to irrelevance, as they complicate an already difficult discussion.
Science must inherently disregard that which is....unscientific.
When I used the word sceptic I was referring to scientists who don't buy into AGW, not lay people.
I didn't mean to imply that certain things aren't taken into account, my point is that if a scientist disagrees with the way modeling is done and the response from another scientist who wants me to believe him is basically "Raiders rule, Chargers suck, GOOD NIGHT NOW!!!", I might not be inclined to believe someone who refuses to engage in a debate.
Tell you what, Bill.....I'll give you 98 -> 2 odds that gw (acceleration) is man-made...you name the bet =)......are we on?
Why is it logical to believe the 2% over the 98%?
I hope you realize that you just kinda proved my point. I see political motivation in this AGW topic and don't think the believers have done a very good job of stating their case. You didn't state your case, you came back with a bet, that's all.
You've aroused my curiosity. Why is it that you feel qualified to lay odds on this topic? How do we determine a "victor"?
Similar threads
