Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years.
As reported by AFP, NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) scientists have released a study saying that current levels of global warming will cause irreversible damage, no matter what is done in the future to decrease CO2 and other related emissions.
"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.
The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.
The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to "lock in" a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years."
This is certainly well past a wake-up call. Here's where the relentless optimist meets the original cynic: I refuse to accept that it is worthless to make the biggest changes possible to head off increasing global warming. Am I denying science? No, I'm just clinging to hope.
Original text copyright © 2009 James K. Bashkin
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 108
Funny on the comment above, polls shoe most meteorologists don't buy global warming, but climatologists do...? I have an article saved someplace on that.
Thanks.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
"...current levels of global warming will cause irreversible damage, no matter what is done in the future to decrease CO2 and other related emissions."
If this is so, then the damage is done. Tomorrow is already the future. (or is the future just the day after which they decide to allocate the specific funds just in the nick of time?) Why throw money we don't even have into something that may make no difference, whatsoever, while people freeze to death TODAY because we haven't the means to help them all?
As for throwing money that is relatively a different problem. If we know it's "no turning back" it doesn't mean we have to keep to do it even more or not restore at least a bit of it, even if it doesn't make much difference. The damage is done, but it is done because we thought like "hey, one more sure won't hurt" just like we're thinking now. That kind of thinking brought us to this point of no return. SO we should change it.
If the last major "period", for what its worth, was the Ice Age, wouldn't the Earth be consistantly in a state of global warming for the last million years or so. Also if life was destroyed by some measure during post "Jurassic periods", wouldn't that lead to an increase in CO2 as well?
Because if we aren't moving towards global warming, we are moving towards global cooling, right? So we have to pick a poison
Change a tree, hug a light-bulb - want to save the world, just a simple minded fool that needs a logical answer.
Great post James!
Point is, obviously those glaciers melted and I'm sure some broke off and drifted into a lake/ocean, so why are we so surprised over the last 20 years that this is happening even further north.
FYI - it's 20 degree's in Columbus today!
Anyway, the science is still out on the effects of global warming. But it's pretty well accepted that it is happening an that we are the primary cause. So it does seem like a good idea to at least to implement the highly cost effective countermeasures as soon as possible.
And if you think we don't have the means to help some who is freezing to death, I beg to differ.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
This is nebulous talk. When is that future when it will be futile to try? As I said, it will be soon after the proponents of this hype allocate the billions necessary to say that they've caught it in time, and we won't ever be able to determine whether it was all a waste. How convenient is that? Once again, can you quantify the difference between what will be bad if something is done and what will be worse if nothing is done? You really don't think we have more pressing problems that can assuredly be solved with money that could very well be wasted otherwise?
Levin, I never noticed what you refer to in "An Inconvenient Truth." Grudge? He made light-hearted, self-deprecating jokes, in my view, and then moved on.
I'm sorry but I don't think I really understand your question(s). I'll try to answer. The point that many of us wish to make by proactively addressing climate change and other environmental issues is to avoid or prevent "poison" of any kind from becoming a major problem.
One aspect of the current state of affairs is the rapid increase in global warming since the industrial revolution. Volcano eruption and meteor crashes have probably contributed to extremely rapid climate change in the past. Do we want to provide the same results, without needing the volcanoes or giant meteor? I don't think so.
Oh, really, Larry? What gives you the knowledge to make the assumption that the date to which he alludes is like maybe 2100? How about like, maybe 2100 or like maybe 2200, or maybe the day after tomorrow? Simply amazing and so scientific!
.peace
"Tim, I'm not the one who wrote this. '...current levels of global warming will cause irreversible damage, no matter what is done in the future to decrease CO2 and other related emissions.'
This is nebulous talk. When is that future when it will be futile to try?"
It doesn't say there's some time in the future when it would be futile to try. It says that damage will occur in the future no matter what we do now. Basically, it says we're beyond the point of which no damage will occur. Read it again, closer this time. Of course, that doesn't preclude that additional damage would be done if we did nothing.
"Do you know what the national debt is? Do you know what debt even means? It means that not only do we not have money, but it means that we also owe it. You want to spend more money that we don't even have to do something for which the results are not quanitfiable and may not even be qualifiable? Beg to diffe all you want but debt doesn't imply having money in any way, shape, or form, unless one is delusional."
Do I really need to explain this? Or are you just being an antagonist? The wealth of the nation allows for a whole heck of a lot of to be done, including to prevent a person from freezing. The debt of the US government is a balance issue. You're basically saying that if the government collected enough taxes from the nation to have no debt, that only then you'd admit that we have money. But that's not how things operate.
Furthermore, US debt has little to do with the issue. As far as I've heard, the solutions for reducing emissions cost little or nothing to the government. In fact, things like carbon trading or carbon taxes earn the government money. Likewise, regulations cost the government nothing except potentially enforcement costs. So what we're talking about here are private costs. Mainly, the costs are a result of using more expensive (at least at the moment) alternative energy sources, other than oil and coal.
A 93-year-old Man died in his home in Bay City, Michigan yesterday. He froze to death. The ENTIRE nation IS HAVING THE WORST AND COLDEST WINTER in decades. Gore had to cancel his yearly "Shakedown Bash" because he would look like a fool, crying "Wolf" in the middle of a Blizzard...
U.S. debt has EVERYTHING to do with this issue. This "carbon credit" BS simply lines Gores pocket, (over 1 BILLION SO FAR) and hurts American Business, and thus, prices. And then, of course, this "pain" is passed on to the consumer. Half the World, also, refuses to "participate."
Ever wonder where the Gore Family accrued their Billions? OIL!!! And, Tobacco. If "global warming" is a problem (it isn't) he's a MAJOR contributor. Ask the Pilots of his G5's. Add to that list Obama. 600 PRIVATE JETS were given cleared runways into D.C. for the inauguration. Hypocrites. If they don't care, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I?
We USE Oil and Coal; as does most of the World. Deal with it.
Respond to my points.
Ummm if this is bunk then how is this happening?
Reporter: Karen Barlow
ASHLEY HALL: For years, scientists have struggled to explain why the interior of Antarctica was getting cooler, while the rest of the continent got warmer.
But no longer. They've now confirmed that temperatures right across the icy continent have been rising over the past 50 years. And to confirm the findings, a mammoth ice shelf is about to snap off and drift into the ocean.
That ice shelf is 6000 sq miles and is breaking off due to warming.
You want to say that a nation that is on the brink of bankruptcy has the wealth for, at best, a gamble with whatever monetary resources you think we have that are disposable? Fine. Live in your fantasy world. You think it will cost pennies? Who's been paying for all the grants that fund your government scientists' research? Who will continue to pay? Just keep spending.
Well, darn those scientists who keep publishing inconvenient papers. Hand me the keys to the Airstream honey, make sure the ammo boxes are full, and lets go see America at X$/gallon and 500 rounds a minute.*
*Referencing the song by singer-songwriter Cheryl Wheeler, Don’t Forget the Guns.
the sickest thing about these hacks is that so many of them have the gall to reproduce.
"Well, darn those scientists who keep publishing inconvenient papers." -- James
Indeed, this also works both ways, James. I can point to 32,000 Scientists (and growing VERY exponentially)) who say that you, and your scientists, are wrong. Their publications hold more water with me, because common sense appeals to me much more than Dogma. It then becomes a matter of TWO things:
A. Is this caused by Man ENTIRELY, and therefore, "fixable" by Man; is it really a problem, and one that CAN be fixed? (the arrogant position and non-sensical, in my opinion).
B. Do we suspend our disbelief, forget all common sense, and ignore the fact that our climate has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS been cyclical?
I always, always, always consult my Sensibilities...(and I'm not interested in what "Cheryl Wheeler" has to say).
"Dorian," why don't you blow me.
Just for one end of the night hoot, packed with the inimitable flair for irony that is their legacy, I couldn't resist.
"It's true. I am politically far to the left of President Obama but I wouldn't have voted for anybody as left as myself. The times are ripe for Obama and we're all fortunate that the stars aligned, or whatever they do. Or is that the planets? I dunno, I just know that we're on our way back to a reality that isn't a 24/7 insult to our intelligence."
Dorian T., Jan 27, 2009, 12:25pm EST
Don't you just love it?
Does anyone else wonder at the fact that probably no one would have chosen number 4, although as it turns out, that is the correct answer? I just dont get it. Why is this even being discussed?
..."I just know that we're on our way back to a reality that isn't a 24/7 insult to our intelligence." Derwood
This is the most humourous, and most revealing part.
Thank You, Sue. I needed that. I enjyed it, as well! Hoot!
They state to anyone that can hear that the earth has ALWAYS done this and there is nothing to worry about, that the people whom speak of global warming are fools. Yet there are glacier formations that have been standing for thousands of years that are NOW breaking off and melting away. If this is normal why has it not happened before now? Why has glacier formations that have been around since the ice age now melting ?? And yet they tell us that it is normal... I guess the world is flat, right ?
You make a good point, Sy. Perhaps you may ask the "poster." Neither do I.
Because what you cannot seem to comprehend is that both you, and the distance in time between now and the last Ice Age, is but a mere blip on the screen...
"If this is normal why has it not happened before now?" -- Dj
It has...
Really ?? it has ?? Well being as I am pretty sure you were not around for the last ice age please enlighten me as to how you know this? Help me comprehend that which I do not understand ? I was not aware that the earth has lost its polar caps before, that the planet was more covered in water then it is now. If you could point me in the direction of your basis of facts I would love to read them and perhaps do some more studying.
Start with Greenland.
James B., "
What evidence? they are part of the government... do you realize just how ignorant you just made yourself?
ROFLOL Charles!!!!!
The thing is, even if there weren't clear evidence that man is behind this impending catastrophe, moving away from oil and coal is STILL the right thing to do. I live in oil country, my boss and best friend are both geologists who have worked with big oil. Our domestic producers are getting the dribs and drabs now, they tell me, and can't really get oil out of the ground for less than $100/barrel. And, of course, over time, that situation will just get worse. So, we will become more and more dependent on foreign fuels, sitting on our hands because we want to believe doomsday scenarios about the cost of converting to energy sources that actually have a future rather than face the doomsday scenarioS of keeping (and increasing) our oil and coal addictions.
It's just kick the can (unless you're truly braindead) and 20-30 years down the line, when we've blown our chances to have developed other options, we'll be over the wall being reamed senseless by big oil because we have no choice. THEN, we MIGHT pursue those avenues we could have pursued decades before, but paying ridiculously in the meantime. But we'll be behind because others are pursuing it today (which is good for the world but not for us). And who will be masters of the universe then? Who will have the keys to renewable energy?
Guess.
The arguments against global warming make as much damn sense as the women, bruised and broken, pleading with the cops not to lock her husband away.
Except, of course, they've also pimping their children and their neighbors to that same battering sleezebag.
I don't have a problem with people being dumb as doorknobs, but I do object when they want to take everyone else down with them.
Ohhh Golly Gee, someone that has the IQ of a decapitated mule calling me dumb... I think I'll go home and cry...
As for "asking the poster" why this article is here, it just popped up as a press release from one of the most prestigious scientific journals. It is on a topic of much current interest. I thought it would be a valuable addition to the discourse here. I haven't the faintest idea why this has provoked such a virulent response from some people. Nobody was forced to read or comment.
As for the remarks along the lines of "not more of this...," I simply say, get used to it: this isn't the last word by any means. I am not your problem or your enemy, and I welcome a reasonable discussion. I am grateful for all the comments, especially those that are that aren't rude, whether they agree with me or not.
I really do think that we ought to be able to see a simple news report, with a few added lines of interpretation, without getting completely bent out of shape. What was in the water today?
Again, thanks to those from all sides for your comments that were helpful, frustrated, informative, supportive, inquiring... anything but vulgar. The latter I could do without, though it won't cause me to lose any sleep.
I look forward to more discussion.
I haven't been able to get the original scientific article yet, but will probably be able to see it within a few days. I'll have more to say, then.
Even if global warming was real, and the lack of valid fact denies it, it would be a natural effect as geological history shows this happens. Geological record also shows that the rise in CO2 follows a warming as well and does not preceed one.
Everytime these morons prove Global Warming, their proof falls apart so quickly they have to go into overdrive to modify it, and yet you people keep believing it. So whose dumber, one that follows proven and stable fact, or one that follows an unproven and weak story?
First of all, I do not and have not, to my recollection, called anyone dumb in this forum. I certainly do not call people dumb to my knowledge (in my more mature years, like the last 25 or so).
Second, what do you mean by "no one questions the motivations and results of GW supporters"? I can give you tens of pages of of such questions from Gather alone. More important, it is the job description of working scientists to question their own work, and the work of their peers, constantly. I don't have any problem feeling sure that the published reports on GW in peer reviewed journals have undergone rigorous questioning, based on my personal experience getting papers accepted for publication (and the experience of many colleagues, mentors, etc. over 30+ years in the world of professional science).
You are free to question the motivations of scientists and grants they pursue. You will not, however, find dishonest behavior any more frequently in science than in other segments of society. Scientists are human, they aren't perfect, but they try their best and are scrupulous, with very few exceptions (interestingly, some of the biggest GW skeptics who are so-called scientists are documented to be unscrupulous; this has also been documented on Gather, at my own blog, and many other places).
If you started calling all clergymen criminals, nobody would believe you. If you called all policemen criminals, nobody would believe you. If you called all members of our armed forces criminals, you wouldn't get much support and you'd (rightly) make a lot of enemies. Yet you feel comfortable calling about 99.9% of scientists (no, that isn't a scientific number, it is an anecdotally-derived number) criminally negligent without batting an eye.
Fine, say what you want, but live with the consequences (some people are going to pretty insulted and angry, and may lash out accordingly, just as they and/or others would lash out against attacks on the other groups of human beings I've mentioned who try to work for the good if mankind, in the vast majority of cases).
The big conflicts in discussions here, and elsewhere, often come when particular, specific arguments or points are repeatedly shown to be untrue to particular individuals and groups, and still the same people keep using these discredited arguments, without regard for the discussion they have supposedly participated in. This starts out being frustrating, and can become annoying. It means that some people are engaging in false debate: they wear the metaphorical clothes of the debater, they talk the talk of a debater, but they flush their opponents logic away without any real consideration for the points being made.
Nobody expects all people to be able to comprehend the details of complex scientific study. It is bizarre, however, when people with little or no training in the area feel completely comfortable in dismissing the expert opinions of such studies, and replacing expert conclusions with their own... and please do not cite the fictitious Oregon petition in claiming that scientists don't agree with GW conclusions. That is a fraudulent document that has been discredited by its own Institute, has the "signatures" of many scientists who have been long dead, and has been repeatedly debunked by at least a half dozen people on gather alone.
You seem unable to accept that government scientists, or independent scientists funded by foundations or the government, can be unbiased in their approach to GW even though they, in fact, have no vested stake in the answers. There may be a huge support for anthropogenic GW now, but it had to fight its way out of the primordial ooze of ideas and make a name for itself on its own merits. The data might have taken conclusions in a different direction, but this didn't happen. Energy company spokesmen do have a vested financial interest in the outcome of the debate, so they should be viewed much more skeptically than unaffiliated, random scientists just doing the job of seeking the truth.
Is it true that some people write grant proposals in areas that have become popular and deemed important? Yes. In fact, Congress has mandated that scientists who use Federal money must contribute to the public good by working in areas that promise to impact society. That isn't the same as cooking the answers to meeting some preconceived political or scientific notions. The latter is fraud, and scientists can go to jail for it (some have), so that, beyond each scientists individual self-respect and professional pride (and the desire not to be proved wrong, later), there is a strong incentive for each lab to follow proper procedures and make sensible and defensible interpretations of their data.
It is worth keeping in mind that scientists are not a bunch of liberal hotheads- they represent a cross-section of political and religious opinion that is in keeping with their heritage and country. Yet, as Steve B. has pointed out, no scientific organization, not one, has come out against GW. These organizations do not issue opinions without no-holds-barred debate of the scientific details, and not one has ended up disputing anthropogenic GW.
Do you really think that a cantankerous scientist in Texas, for example. gives a hoot about what someone in Washington DC or Stockholm or Kyoto or Peoria says? No, these people form opinions based on careful examination of the facts.` Dispute them if you wish, believe what you want, but if you or anyone else wants to engage in debate here and be respected by people from all sides of the question, there is a certain burden of responsibility to read and react to the evidence presented, instead of ignoring it and repeating oneself, as many on the "discussion" have chosen to do. On "my side of the question" we see precious little reaction to plain evidence, presented again and again.
Now we have had vulgarity added to the mix. What is that supposed to accomplish? It is simply another bullying tactic, and, while we might react in different ways, we as a group or individually, won't back down to bullying.
We don't expect you to back down to bullying, either. So maybe we can go read a little more and bring something new to the table, like this article described above, which was new when posted: I brought these new conclusions to the table, for which I received bizarre, nasty criticism from some quarters. Why? Who is afraid of another scientific study that provides more information? Who wouldn't want to know more or learn more? Some people, apparently, and they seem to be people who don't want to learn at all, if the truth upsets their world view. That is not a criticism of people who read and rejected the story, it is a description of the subset of dissenting people who responded according to politics, not thought. People who reject the ideas and offer well-reasoned arguments would be most welcome- they would allow the real debate to begin.
The great thing about science, or one of them, is that we can know something tomorrow that we didn't know yesterday... but only if we listen and read and think it through. Being upset by new information is a very odd reaction, to say the least, unless we are addressing the substance of the information, which is upsetting. But we can't reject ideas just because they upset us or shake us up. That wouldn't be logical, it would be emotional, and we've seen plenty of emotion in some of the responses.
For a couple of sentences, a quote, and a link, I think you more than got your bang for the buck.
One of the main reasons I came to this post is because I've noticed that you've been on my first page of connections more frequently lately and, as I normally do when my connections start getting unwieldy, I prune them. (unwieldy for me is >75) This was a check for me to see whether I should or shouldn't keep your contact, and so I don't want you to think my disconnection was over this because all this did was confirm my suspicions that there's probably not much that you are going to offer me that I won't get someplace else, so it's not over some hard feelings. I wish you well, James.
...and you respond with this:
"and (you) accuse me of not promoting a discussion." -James
Are you a "scientist?" Because, James, it is a lack of COMPREHENSION like this, that makes things difficult to discuss with you...and makes taking you seriously quite difficult, as well.
Like MORE? All-right, then!
"Mark-John, I've posted the Naval Research Lab study, the one that debunks solar activity as the cause of global warming, in discussions that you've participated in before, yet you quote sun spots again, and accuse me of not promoting a discussion."--James
Well, James...
"Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman)."
Now, let us have more discussion on the relevance of sunspot activity, in this case, on the Little Ice Age:
"During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. A growing body of scientific evidence[29] indicates that there is a correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures[30]. There is not sufficient data to use sunspot numbers to predict temperatures or climate variance, but the coincidence of low sunspot activity (e.g., the Maunder Minimum) with the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age supports such a connection[31]. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period near the beginning of the Little Ice Age."
Hmmm...so this sort of thing has happened BEFORE...AND, WITHOUT the help of SUV's!!!!!!
And then, there is this little Gem:
"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of [*cooling occurring after a warmer era] known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum."
Oooooohhhh...so this HAS happened before!!! Hokey SMOKE; who'd a thunk it...
(Wake up, Dj, that was for YOU.)
Now, James, your "dad" says that sunspots are irrelevant to climate; MY "dad" says that they ARE.
Hmmmm...
If he is true to his words he must be suicidal or he's not true to his words, privately he knows perfectly well there is no such thing as global warming and he lied to people because he knew he'd make a fortune (which he did by the way). How come no one questions that?
How about an example instead of groundless accusations of nameless commenters? Unless I'm reading the heading wrong not a single comment has been deleted.
No scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports that global warming is "unequivocal" and that it is "very likely" (i.e., 90% probability) caused by human activity. Why do you keep up this charade of denialism?
(Wake up, Dj, that was for YOU.)
I am sorry Mark but one of us does have a job and has to go to work, we all can't be Willy E Coyote, but unfortunately I can not speak intelligently enough for you to understand so I bow to your obtuseness and will let you drown in peace. I only pray that you and your son charles have a long and healthy life.
Please remember to put the Vaseline on your fingers as so not to get them stuck in your ears.
Ps. charles you are not the greatest american hero, no matter what you may think. And for the glaciers that covered the NA. well I am sure google can help you out there.