Canadians are promised a "Green Paper" that will be a better response to Global Warming than Kyoto! We are waiting!
Canada, did not sign onto Kyoto either. However unlike the USA, the Government here promises us a better plan & it is soon to be released. The people here are waiting & pressuring the Government to do something today!
Right now the Alberta Oil Sands produce more Oil exports to the USA, than all of Saudi Arabia, but the plans are to increase this amount by 3 times in the next 10 years! People here are demanding that the Government bring us to standards that outstrip the Kyoto goals within that same 10 years, as Scientists predict, that in 11 years it will be too late to fix the inevitable.
The problem is the USA. Tired of doing things that the USA promises to follow us on, like with changing to the Metric System (as the rest of the World is set up on), we know that simply supplying the USA with enough Oil to kill us all is not the answer.
We are pointing to California making headway in the situation & demanding that the Government do something now! Automobile Manufacturers were regulated in the late 70's & 80's here, & their efficiency went up because of this. Later in the 80's the regulations came off & since that time, efficiency has remained stable, while the technology for making them more efficient has drastically increased.
Cars today can get up to 100 miles per gallon, but without government regulation, there is no way anything will change.
Our new Government's position is that the former Government signed agreement after agreement, but simply put nothing in place to fulfill these agreements for almost 2 decades. The Governments position is that there is no way now to meet the desired results, in the time frames outlined, but they are promising to put in place regulations & to promote methods of bringing down the Greenhouse gasses produced here in Canada by as much as 60% within the 10 year period, while increasing the GNP at the same time.
Canadians are waiting with bated breath of the release of this plan. Keeping in mind that we will have to "overcompensate" for the USA, which has NO PLAN federally whatsoever & we are the ones "feeding the dragon".
What is quite evident in the USA, is the blindness of the American population on the issue, to such an extent, as they continue to go after more oil, instead of changing the slightest thing by regulation to help the situation in any way.
As we understand it, the situation is not just automobiles that is the cause of Global Warming, but also emissions from homes, industry, aircraft, ships & the refinement process itself, along with the lack of recycling which is another major contributor.
Yet when looking at the USA on this issue, we find it so silly that we are faced with a populace, that is not only ignorant about the matter, but are ridiculous enough to believe that any crisis even exists!
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 97
Seems to me that there are many Canadian scientists who don't agree that humans have caused global warming.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Unlike the populace of the USA, still going after more Oil, which is the root of the problem, by invading Iraq, most people in Canada know it is a fact & are not about to dispute over 85% of the Worlds scientists on the issue.
Instead, next to demanding we get out troops out of Afghanistan, we are pressuring our Government to do something & we are on the News about it! We were concerned 10 years ago, but the GOP here, kept giving us lip service & signing accords that they had no interest in fulfilling.
Unlike the majority of the population of the USA that says "Problem? What Problem?... Honey... can I have the keys to the Hummer?"
Last year was the warmest in recorded History & this summer was the warmest since the Dust Bowls of the 1930's. When the statistics are finally released for this you, I think you will find the Global Temperature outstripped last years records. The Arctic Icepack is melting at a drastic rate, Polar Bears are eating Polar Bears for the first time in history & the wildfires this year alone in the USA have been the worst imaginable! The evidence is all there, if you did research. Over 85% of the Worlds Scientists agree.
The Sun my friend is not getting hotter. Yet if you could show me even 40% of Scientists that agree with you that it is, I might see some credence in that kind of insanity.
Boom goes the dynamite.
ocean stormRising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks may be permanently altered.
Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.
Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas.
The vast North American continent ranges from the lush sub-tropical climate of Florida to the frozen ice and tundra of the Arctic. Within these extremes are two wealthy industrialized countries with diverse ecosystems at risk. Yet the United States and Canada are two of the largest global emitters of the greenhouse gases that contribute to a warming climate. Examples of all 10 of the "hotspot" categories can be found in this region, including changes such as polar warming in Alaska, coral reef bleaching in Florida, animal range shifts in California, glaciers melting in Montana, and marsh loss in the Chesapeake Bay.
For North America we have many more hotspots than for some other regions of the world, although impact studies have been emerging in larger numbers in recent years from previously under-studied regions. This higher density of early warning signs in the US and Canada is due in part to the fact that these regions have more readily accessible climatic data and more comprehensive programs to monitor and study environmental change, in part to the disproportionate warming that has been observed over the mid-to-high-latitude continents compared to other regions during the last century, and in part to capture the attention of North Americans who need to take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Fingerprints
4. Edmonton, Canada -- Warmest summer on record, 1998. Temperatures were more than 5.4�F (3�C) higher than the 116-year average.
7. Glasgow, Montana -- No sub-zero days, 1997. For the first time ever, temperatures remained above 0�F (-17.8�C) in December. The average temperature was 10.9�F (6�C) above normal.
8. Little Rock, Arkansas -- Hottest May on record, 1998.
9. Texas -- Deadly heat wave, summer 1998. Heat claimed more than 100 lives in the region. Dallas temperatures were over 100�F (37.8�C) for 15 straight days.
10. Florida -- June heat wave, 1998. Melbourne endured 24 days above 95�F (35�C); nighttime temperatures in Tampa remained above 80�F (26.6�C) for 12 days.
11. USA -- Late fall heat wave 1998. An unprecedented autumn heat wave from mid-November to early December broke or tied more than 700 daily-high temperature records from the Rockies to the East Coast. Temperatures rose into the 70�F (20�C) as far north as South Dakota and Maine.
12. Eastern USA -- July heat wave, 1999. More than 250 people died as a result of a heat wave that gripped much of the eastern two-thirds of the country. Heat indices of over 100�F (37.8�C) were common across the southern and central plains, reaching a record 119�F (48.3�C) in Chicago.
13. New York City -- Record heat, July 1999. New York City had its warmest and driest July on record, with temperatures climbing above 95�F (35�C) for 11 days -- the most ever in a single month.
39. Chesapeake Bay -- Marsh and island loss. The current rate of a sea-level rise is three times the historical rate and appears to be accelerating. Since 1938, about one-third of the marsh at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge has been submerged.
40. Bermuda -- Dying mangroves. Rising sea level is leading to saltwater inundation of coastal mangrove forests.
42. Hawaii -- Beach loss. Sea-level rise at Waimea Bay, along with coastal development, has contributed to considerable beach loss over the past 90 years.
65. Glacier National Park, Montana -- All glaciers in the park will be gone by 2070 if retreat continues at its current rate.
68. Interior Alaska -- Permafrost thawing. Permafrost thawing is causing the ground to subside 16-33 feet (4.9-10 m) in parts of interior Alaska. The permafrost surface has warmed by about 3.5�F (1.9�C) since the 1960's.
69. Barrow, Alaska -- Less snow in summer. Summer days without snow have increased from fewer than 80 in the 1950's to more than 100 in the 1990's.
71. Bering Sea -- Reduced sea ice. Sea-ice extent has shrunk by about 5 percent over the past 40 years.
72. Arctic Ocean -- Shrinking sea ice. The area covered by sea ice declined by about 6 percent from 1978 to 1995.
135. Canadian Rockies - Disappearing glaciers. The Athabasca Glacier has retreated one-third of a mile (0.5 km) in the last 60 years and has thinned dramatically since the 1950s-60s. In British Columbia the Wedgemont Glacier has retreated hundreds of meters since 1979, as the climate has warmed at a rate of 2�F (1.1�C) per century, twice the global average.
136. Alaska - Increasing rate of retreat. A study of 67 glaciers shows that between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s the glaciers thinned by an average of about 1.6 feet (0.5 m) per year. Repeat measurements on 28 of those glaciers show that from the mid-1990s to 2000-2001 the rate of thinning had increased to nearly 6 feet (1.8 m) per year. Alaska has experienced a rapid warming since the 1960s. Annual average temperatures have warmed up to 1.8�F (1�C) per decade over the last three decades, and winter warming has been as high as 3�F (2�C) per decade.
Climate change: 'One degree and we're done for'
* 27 September 2006
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* Fred Pearce
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Tools
* digg this
* reddit submit
* Add My Yahoo
* Newsvine
* DEL.ICIO.US
More Stories
* Explore: earth
Climate change hotspots
Enlarge image
Climate change hotspots
"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."
So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).
The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska, underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as dramatic on land in the far north.
A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change. Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central Siberia has warmed by almost 2 °C since 1970 - that's three times the global average.
Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2 °C since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).
In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused the onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.
The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still further. Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths. "They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says. The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy soil vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.
In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin, warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe," says Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.
Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US scientists (Nature, vol 443, p 71).
"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter. Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he says.
"The release of methane from melting permafrost has been responsible for some of the largest warmings in history"
We could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the past million years, outside that range - beyond a further warming of about 1 °C - the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.
Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs, permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole, they are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250 billion a year, or $160 per hectare.
"The value of the services this ecosystem performs is more than twice that of the resources taken from the region each year"
These benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.
The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber, minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of our gross domestic product - similar in value to our health and social services."
You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volume of carbon locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system, Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."
And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 27 September 2006, page 8-9
Scientists predict the Earth's average temperature will rise anywhere from 1.5°C to 4.5°C by the year 2100. Such a drastic change in temperature promises to have severe effects on our environment, health, and economies. In 1997, nations (including Canada) signed the Kyoto Protocol, committing themselves to reducing greenhouse gases and stalling global warming. The Protocol provided for a new approach to international cooperation and environmental regulation.
On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into effect. However, internationally, the Protocol still faces a number of challenges, chief among them that its potential overall impact remains in doubt, as the United States has opted out of participating. Other questions that linger include whether member countries will indeed meet their commitments, and whether developing nations can eventually be brought into the fold of the Protocol. Domestically, Canada continues to craft its own strategy for meeting its commitments under Kyoto.
The following is an introduction to global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, and the impact of the Protocol on Canadian politics. This introduction is divided into the following sections:
Understanding Climate and Global Warming
The section offers a brief overview concerning weather, climate, greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect, and global warming.
The Causes of Global Warming
What are the causes and effects of greenhouse gases?
The Consequences of Global Warming for Canada
What are the consequences of global warming for each region of Canada?
The History of the Kyoto Protocol
This section examines the Kyoto Protocol and its backstory, including its evolution in the greater international context.
Understanding the Kyoto Protocol
This section offers highlights of the Kyoto Protocol.
Assessing the Kyoto Protocol
What are the benefits and detriments of the Protocol?
Bringing Kyoto Protocol into Force
What are the impacts of the US failure to sign the Protocol, Russia's delay in ratification, and the actual implementation of the Protocol in 2005?
Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Canada
This section looks at the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Canada, from a variety of perspectives.
Federal Government's Kyoto Strategy
This section offers an overview of the federal government's strategy to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments, as well as criticisms of that strategy by environment groups, industry, the provinces, and opposition parties.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/environment/kyoto/
The Causes of Global Warming
Global warming is the result of human activities that are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, creating the "enhanced" greenhouse effect and an increase in the earth's average temperature. The following is an examination of the causes and effects of the various greenhouse gases.
Carbon Dioxide
A rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is responsible for over 60% of the "enhanced" greenhouse effect (Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control). Since the 1800s, carbon dioxide levels have increased by 30%. The primary cause has been the burning of fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil and gas) by industry and automobiles. These fuels contain carbon and release carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Deforestation also releases carbon dioxide.
Methane
Methane emissions contribute to 15-20% of the "enhanced" greenhouse effect. The main source of methane is agriculture, in particular, flooded rice patties and herds of cattle. Other sources of methane emissions include waste dumps, coal mining, and natural gas production.
Other Gases
Nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and ozone contribute the remaining 20% of the "enhanced" greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxide is produced by intensive agriculture. Ozone is the result of air pollution. CFCs are the result of refrigeration systems, air conditioners, and plastic foam manufacturing. While increasing in the 1990s, CFC levels have peaked due to emission controls under the Montreal Protocol.
Greenhouse gas emissions, 1991 (000 metric tons)
CO2 emissions from
Methane from anthropogenic sources
industrial processes land use change Solid Waste Coal Mining Oil and Gas Wet Rice Livestock Total
World 22,339,408 4,100,000 43,000 36,000 44,000 69,000 81,000 270,000
Africa 715,773 730,000 1,700 1,700 6,000 2,400 9,000 21,000
Europe 6,866,494 11,000 17,000 6,600 15,000 420 14,000 53,000
North & Central America 5,715,466 190,000 11,000 6,100 8,200 590 9,200 35,000
South America 605,029 1,800,000 2,200 280 2,200 870 15,000 21,000
Asia 7,118,317 1,300,000 9,900 20,000 12,000 65,000 30,000 140,000
Oceania 297,246 38,000 690 1,400 310 75 3,300 5,800
(Source: World Resources Institute, as cited in World Resources 199697, pp. 326329)
What is Climate Change?
Climate change is a change in the "average weather" that a given region experiences. Average weather includes all the features we associate with the weather such as temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. When we speak of climate change on a global scale, we are referring to changes in the climate of the Earth as a whole. The rate and magnitude of global climate changes over the long term have many implications for natural ecosystems.
A natural system known as the "greenhouse effect" regulates the temperature on earth. Human activities have the potential to disrupt the balance of this system. As human societies adopt increasingly sophisticated and mechanized lifestyles, the amounts of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have been increased. By increasing the amount of these gases, humankind has enhanced the warming capability of the natural greenhouse effect. It is the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect that causes environmental concern. It has the potential to warm the planet at a rate that has never been experienced in human history.
An international scientific consensus has emerged that our world is getting warmer. Abundant data demonstrate that global climate was warmed during the past 150 years. The increase in temperature was not constant, but rather consisted of warming and cooling cycles at intervals of several decades. Nonetheless, the long term trend is one of net global warming. Corresponding with this warming, alpine glaciers have been retreating, sea levels have risen, and climatic zones are shifting.
* The 1980s and 1990s are the warmest decades on record
* The 10 warmest years in global meteorological history have all occurred in the past 15 years
* The 20th century has been the warmest globally in the last 600 years
Most experts agree that average global temperatures could rise by 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the next century. In Canada, this could mean an increase in annual mean temperatures in some regions of between 5 and 10 degrees.
Climate change is more than a warming trend. Increasing temperatures will lead to changes in many aspects of weather, such as wind patterns, the amount and type of precipitation, and the types and frequency of severe weather events that may be expected to occur. Such climate change could have far-reaching and/or unpredictable environmental, social and economic consequences.
For more information on the effects of climate change in Canada, see the following resources:
http://climatechange.nrcan.gc.ca
http://climatechange.gc.ca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
You can clearly see that the temperature of the Earth has been increasing since the middle of the 19th century.
Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
# The Earth was formed about 4,540,000,000 years ago.
# In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen (less than 1% oxygen pressure).
# Early plants started to develop more than 2 billion years ago, probably about 2,700,000,000.
# Through photosynthesis, plants uptake carbon dioxide into the biosphere as organic matter, and release oxygen as a byproduct.
# Through geologic time, oxygen accumulated gradually in the atmosphere, reaching a value of about 21% of atmospheric gases at the present time.
# Through geologic time, surplus organic matter has been sequestered in the lithosphere as fossil organic materials (coal, petroleum, and natural gas).
# Early animals (the first organisms with external shells) started to develop around 600,000,000 years ago.
# Animals operate in the opposite way than plants: they take up oxygen, burn organic matter (food), and release carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
# Early humans (Australopithecus anamensis) began to develop about 4,100,000 years ago.
# Cool climatic conditions have prevailed during the past 1,000,000 years. The species Homo sapiens evolved under these climatic conditions.
# Homo sapiens dates back to more than 400,000 years.
# Estimates for the variety Homo sapiens sapiens, to which all humans belong, range from 130,000 to 195,000 years old.
# The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as low as 190 ppm during the last Ice Age, about 21,000 years ago.
# The last Ice Age began to recede about 20,000 years ago.
# The agricultural revolution, where humans converted forests and rangelands into farms, began to develop about 10,000 years ago.
# The agricultural revolution caused a reduction in standing biomass in the biosphere and reduced the uptake of carbon dioxide in midlatitudinal regions, indirectly contributing, however so slightly, to global warming.
# The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased gradually from a low of 190 ppm 21,000 year ago, to about 290 ppm in the year 1900, i.e., at an average rate of 0.00478 ppm per year.
# The industrial revolution, where humans developed machines (artificial animals, since they consume fuels, which are mostly organic matter), began in England about 240 years ago (1767).
# In October 1999, the world's population reached 6,000,000,000, which is double that of the year 1959 (the doubling occurred in 40 years).
# The world's population is currently increasing at the rate of about 80,000,000 per year (about 1.2 %).
# The current world population is 6,541,161,782 (September 2006).
# The global fleet of motor vehicles is estimated at 830,000,000 (2006).
# The global fleet of motor vehicles has been recently growing at the rate of 16,000,000 per year.
# Motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, and scooters) account for 80% of all transport-related energy use.
# The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 290 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, or at an average 0.44 ppm per year.
# Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 (316 ppm) have revealed an increase to 378 ppm in 2004, or at an average 1.38 ppm per year.
# The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.8 ppm per year over the past two decades.
# The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1997-98, more than in any other year of record.
# The year 1998 was the warmest of record. The year 2002 was the second warmest (to that date). The year 2003 was the third warmest (to that date). The year 2004 was the fourth warmest (to that date). Last year (2005) equaled 1998 as the warmest of record.
# About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
# The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.
# Anthropogenic changes in land use occur when forests are converted to rangelands, rangelands to agriculture, and agriculture to urban areas.
# Other patterns of land degradation--deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation, desertification, and salinization--reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however slightly, to global warming.
Global Warming Fast Facts
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 6, 2004
Global warming is a hot topic that shows little sign of cooling down. Earth's climate is changing, but just how it's happening, and our own role in the process, is less certain.
Check out these fast facts and pictures for a snapshot of Earth's evolving climate.
Email to a Friend
RELATED
* Earth Becomes Greener as Climate Changes
* By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says
* Melting Arctic Bogs May Hasten Warming, Study Says
* Arctic Melting Fast; May Swamp U.S. Coasts by 2099
* Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level?
* You Can Fight Global Warming, Authors Urge
• There is little doubt that the planet is warming. Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world.
The spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9 days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.
• The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.
• Over the last million years the Earth has fluctuated between colder and warmer periods. The shifts have occurred in roughly 100,000-year intervals thought to be regulated by sunlight. Earth's sunlight quota depends upon its orbit and celestial orientation.
But changes have also occurred more rapidly in the past—and scientists hope that these changes can tell us more about the current state of climate change. During the last ice age, approximately 70,000 to 11,500 years ago, ice covered much of North America and Europe—yet sudden, sometimes drastic, climate changes occurred during the period. Greenland ice cores indicate one spike in which the area's surface temperature increased by 15 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) in just 10 years.
• Where do scientists find clues to past climate change? The tale is told in remnant materials like glacial ice and moraines, pollen-rich mud, stalagmites, the rings of corals and trees, and ocean sediments that yield the shells of microscopic organisms. Human history yields clues as well, through records like ancient writings and inscriptions, gardening and vintner records, and the logs of historic ships.
• Rising temperatures have a dramatic impact on Arctic ice, which serves as a kind of "air conditioner" at the top of the world. Since 1978 Arctic sea ice area has shrunk by some 9 percent per decade, and thinned as well.
Global Warming Fast Facts
<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
ACIA projects that at least half of the Arctic's summer sea ice will melt by century's end, and that the Arctic region is likely to warm 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 7 degrees Celsius) during the same time.
• Over the very long term, Greenland's massive ice sheet holds enough melt water to raise sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters). ACIA climate models project significant melting of the sheet throughout the 21st century.
Email to a Friend
RELATED
* Earth Becomes Greener as Climate Changes
* By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says
* Melting Arctic Bogs May Hasten Warming, Study Says
* Arctic Melting Fast; May Swamp U.S. Coasts by 2099
* Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level?
* You Can Fight Global Warming, Authors Urge
• Vast quantities of fresh water are tied up in the world's many melting glaciers. When Montana's Glacier National Park was created in 1910 it held some 150 glaciers. Now fewer than 30, greatly shrunken glaciers, remain. Tropical glaciers are in even more trouble. The legendary snows of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro 19,340-foot (5,895-meter) peak have melted by some 80 percent since 1912 and could be gone by 2020.
• Sea levels have risen and fallen many times over the Earth's long geological history. Average global sea level has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20cm) over the past century according to the IPCC.
The IPCC's 2001 report projects that sea level could rise between 4 and 35 inches (10 to 89cm) by century's end. Such rises could have major effects for coastal dwellers. A 1.5-foot (50-centimeter) sea level rise in flat coastal areas would cause a typical coastline retreat of 150 feet (50 meters).
Worldwide some 100 million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could promote flooding in many South Sea islands, while in the U.S. Florida and Louisiana are at risk. The Indian Ocean nation of Maldives has a maximum elevation of only 8 feet (2.5 meters). Construction of a sea wall around the capital, Male, was driven by vulnerability to the rising tides.
• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, moderates global temperatures by moving tropical heat around the planet. Global warming could alter the balance of this system, via an influx of freshwater from melting ice caps for example, creating unforeseen and possibly fast-paced change.
Climate models suggest that global warming could cause more frequent extreme weather conditions. Intense hurricanes and storm surges could threaten coastal communities, while heat waves, fires and drought could also become more common.
• Since the 1860s, increased industrialization and shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million—and Northern Hemisphere temperatures have followed suit. Increases in temperatures and greenhouse gasses have been even sharper since the 1950s.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide also contain heat and help keep Earth's temperate climate balanced in the cold void of space. Human activities, burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, have greatly increased concentrations by producing these gases faster than plants and oceans can soak them up. The gases linger in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even a complete halt in emissions would not immediately stop the warming trend they promote.
• In the Arctic the impacts of a warming climate are being felt already. Coastal Indigenous communities report shorter periods of sea ice, which fails to temper ocean storms and their destructive coastal erosion. Increased snow and ice melt have caused higher rivers while thawing permafrost has wreaked havoc with roads and other infrastructure. Some communities have had to move from historic coastline locations.
Sea ice loss is devastating for species that have adapted to the environment, such as polar bears and ringed seals in the Arctic and Antarctic penguins.
• Studies show that many European plants now flower a week earlier than they did in the 1950s and also lose their leaves 5 days later.
Biologists report that many birds and frogs are breeding earlier in the season. An analysis of 35 nonmigratory butterfly species showed that two-thirds now range 2 to 150 miles (3.5 to 240 kilometers) farther north than they did a few decades ago.
• By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction, according to a recent study.
• Coral reefs worldwide are "bleaching". losing key algae and resident organisms, as water temperatures rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit (29.5 degrees Celsius) through periods of calm, sunny weather. Scientists worry that rapid climate change could inhibit the ability of many species to adapt within complex and interdependent ecosystems.
• The effects of a warming globe may not be entirely negative. Heating costs could decline for those in colder climates, while vast marginal agricultural areas in northern latitudes might become more viable. Arctic shipping and resource extraction operations could also benefit—summer sea ice breakup in Hudson Bay already occurs two to three weeks earlier than it did half a century ago.
But many species could be hit hard—including humans. The most vulnerable are peoples living in the far North, those perched along the world's coasts, and millions dependent on subsistence agriculture subject to the vagaries of a changing climate.
04/15/2005
Setting the Record Straight on Climate Change
A vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it poses a serious threat to society. They also agree that it is being caused largely by human activities that release greenhouse gases, such as burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars and deforesting the land. These highlights -- and the full full report -- lay out some common myths and misunderstandings regarding climate change.
MYTH: Global warming can't be happening, since winters have been getting colder.
FACT: Winters have been getting warmer. Measurements show that Earth's climate has warmed overall over the past century, in all seasons, and in most regions. The skeptics mislead the public when they bill the winter of 2003-2004 as record cold in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single spell of cold weather in one small region is no indication of cooling of the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
MYTH: Satellite measurements of temperature over the past two decades show a much smaller warming in the atmosphere than is measured by thermometers at the surface. This contradicts global warming predictions based on climate models.
FACT: Recent research has corrected problems that led to underestimates of the warming trend in earlier analyses of satellite data. The new results show an atmospheric warming trend slightly larger than at the surface, exactly as models predict.
MYTH: The global warming over the past century is nothing unusual. For example, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), roughly from A.D. 1000 to 1400, was warmer than the 20th century. This indicates the global warming we are experiencing now is part of a natural cycle.
FACT: Ten independent scientific studies all have found a large 20th-century warming trend compared to temperature changes over the past millennium or two. Uncertainty exists as to exactly how warm the present is compared to the MWP. Some studies have received valid criticism for possibly underestimating the magnitude of longer-lasting, century-scale temperature changes, such as the warming during the MWP. However, other studies, using different methods, still find no evidence of any period during the last 2,000 years that was warmer than the 1990s. Most importantly, any uncertainty about whether the present is warmer than the MWP has little effect on the finding that humans likely have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years. A separate body of studies has provided the main evidence for this finding. (See the Myth on causes of warming.)
MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, far too small to have a significant effect on the concentration of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
FACT: Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 emitted from large natural sources closely matched the amount that was removed through natural processes. That balance has now been upset by human activities, which since the Industrial Revolution have put twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as can be readily removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in the accumulation of CO2 to the highest levels in 420,000 years.
MYTH: The Earth's warming is caused by natural factors like increased sunlight and sunspots or decreased cosmic rays, not by greenhouse gases (GHGs).
FACT: Modeling studies indicate that most of the warming over the past several decades was probably caused by the increase in human-produced GHGs. Climate models have difficulty reproducing the observed temperature changes over the past 150 years unless they account for the increase in GHGs as well as natural factors, such as sunlight and volcanic eruptions, and changes in the amount of human-produced sulfate particles, which cool the planet. Satellite measurements of the intensity of sunlight exhibit little or no trend over the past 25 years, when there was rapid warming on Earth. The purported correlations between the amount of cosmic rays and Earth's temperature are the result of flawed analysis methods.
MYTH: The warming observed during the past century was caused by urbanization (urban heat island effect).
FACT: Urbanization does increase temperatures locally, affecting thermometer readings in certain areas. But the temperature data used in trend analyses are adjusted to remove any bias from urbanization. In any case, urbanization has an insignificant effect on global temperature trends.
Read the full report, The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming.
Adobe Acrobat required
MYTH: Models have trouble predicting the weather a few days in advance. How can we have any confidence in model projections of the climate many years from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather. Models are now sophisticated enough to be able to reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century as well as over other periods in the past. Thus, scientists are confident in the models' ability to produce reliable projections of future climate for large regions. Furthermore, climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future GHG emissions, in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
MYTH: The science behind the theory of global warming is too uncertain to draw conclusions useful to policy makers.
FACT: The primary scientific debate is about how much and how fast, rather than whether, additional warming will occur as a result of human-produced GHG emissions. While skeptics like to emphasize the lower end of warming projections, uncertainty actually applies to both ends of the spectrum--the climate could change even more dramatically than most models predict. Finally, in matters other than climate change, policy decisions based on uncertain information are made routinely by governments to ensure against undesirable outcomes. In the case of global warming, scientists have given society an early warning on its possibly dangerous, irreversible and widespread impacts.
MYTH: Global warming and increased CO2 would be beneficial, reducing cold-related deaths and increasing plant growth ("greening the Earth").
FACT: If society does not limit further warming, the beneficial effects probably will be heavily outweighed by negative effects. Regarding cold-related deaths, studies have indicated that they might not decrease enough to compensate for a significant increase in heat-related deaths. Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, they do not necessarily benefit the planet, since the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years in natural ecosystems as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than others.
MYTH: Society can easily adapt to climate change; after all, human civilization has survived through climatic changes in the past.
FACT: While humans as a species have survived through past climatic changes, individual civilizations have collapsed. Unless we limit GHGs in the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since the beginning of human civilization. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection indicates the homes of 13 to 88 million people would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Many ecosystems and species already threatened by other human activities may be pushed to the point of extinction.
MYTH: CO2 is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, so we can wait to take action until after we start to see dangerous impacts from global warming.
FACT: Global warming cannot be halted quickly. CO2 and other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for many centuries. Even if emissions were eliminated today, it would take centuries for the heat-trapping GHGs now in the atmosphere to fall to pre-industrial levels. Only by starting to cut emissions now can humanity avoid the increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences of climate change.
If global warming doesn't exist and we do nothing to correct it, everything is wonderful.
If global warming doesn't exist and we take measures to correct it, we will spend a lot of money on positive environmental projects that will free us from dependence on oil and give us a much cleaner environment - even if it was done trying to fix a non-existent problem.
If global warming exists and we takes measures to correct it, we avert disaster.
If global warming exists and we do nothing, we face an environmental disaster of a magnitude we can't imagine.
Sorry guys - whether or not global warming exists, it seems pretty clear that we need to take the steps to eliminate it - just in case!
I do assure you it exists, as I live in Canada & we have many reports here on our News as to the deteriorating Ice Pack. We are building more Ships now to control our Northern Region, as the Northwest Passage is now open & we have to claim our Sovernty to it, before the USA claims it as their own.
We know what they would do with it, don't we? Drill for more Oil of course! As George Bush has done absolutely NOTHING but to pay "lip service" to what he is hoping for in the future. Not one single regulation to attempt to control it!
Yet I have heard arguments from Americans who are clearly uneducated on the Crisis like:
> It's the Sun that is doing it
> It was just as warm in Medieval times.
> There has always been Carbon Monoxide in the Atmosphere.
> We can't grow enough corn.
> During the 70's they thought we were going into an Ice Age.
All of this in "Total Determination" to keep their head in the sand & not look at the evidence. The seas are rising. The wildlife is dieing. The Ice Caps are melting. The Glaciers are eroding.
What really makes me mad, is all this dodging the issue, led by the Oil Companies (possibly not even knowing they are), not looking at the vast amount of money that can be made from innovation & good American Know-how!
Also like you said, giving us a cleaner, safer & un-threatened Continent to boot!
You have done a great job of convincing yourself that global warming is caused by humans.
When the Norsemen settled Greenland, there was no ice and it was really warm. Then the Little Ice Age came, the Norse failed to adjust by adopting Eskimo methods and the Norsemen disappeared from Greenland.
At least Americans are true to their beliefs while you Canadians do nothing to act on your beliefs. But you apparently spend a lot of time blaming Americans for not believing as you do. Could it be that we are right?
If you people are so against oil, how come you are investing billions to extract it from the oil sands? How come you don't place the vast majority of your oil resources off limits to development as the U.S. has done?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Did you read Allen's post, "Imhofe on Global Warming" word for word objectively?
I'll make a wild guess and say no you did not. You just blew it off as right-wing propaganda, right?
The article is about how the "global warming" alarmists distort the facts to promote their beliefs. It's about how the media jumps on the next bandwagon that comes along to sell their product.
How do we know the earth's temperature range a thousand, three thousand or six thousand or more years ago? We don't! So how can we say with complete certainty that the earth is warmer now than it has ever been and that it's going to stay that way?
We can't!
Good job Allen and Ben!
Simply because we make money from selling oil. Yet we do have limits on drilling future wells & we do have limits as to how much we can pump out of the ground. Where you get your ideas on some "vast majority of oil resources off limit to development in the US" is beyond me.
Where you get your ideas that Global Warming is not caused by humans is also beyond me. Simply unlike me, you have not posted your various sources as I did from NASA, to the UN, to the Canadian Government, to the National Geographic. Heck I only brushed the surface as well.
Yet you can forget reading any of those & keep your head in the sand, as I am sure you have about as much credibility as Iman, who reverts to insults when he has no facts & is totally out to lunch.
You did not read the Myths & Facts, which was many of the articles which I posted to back up what I said either when it said:
Read the full report, The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming.
Adobe Acrobat required
MYTH: Models have trouble predicting the weather a few days in advance. How can we have any confidence in model projections of the climate many years from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather. Models are now sophisticated enough to be able to reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century as well as over other periods in the past. Thus, scientists are confident in the models' ability to produce reliable projections of future climate for large regions. Furthermore, climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future GHG emissions, in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
I agree it probably can. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about volcano's. Yet they have been here since the World began. Volcano's are not responsible for Global Warming, people are.
If global warming doesn't exist and we take measures to correct it, we will spend a lot of money on positive environmental projects that will free us from dependence on oil and give us a much cleaner environment - even if it was done trying to fix a non-existent problem.
If global warming exists and we takes measures to correct it, we avert disaster.
If global warming exists and we do nothing, we face an environmental disaster of a magnitude we can't imagine.
Sorry guys - whether or not global warming exists, it seems pretty clear that we need to take the steps to eliminate it - just in case!
What some people fail to understand is that while Americans are taught to hate the "commies" fanatically, every society encorporates facets of both economic systems.
A bus system that picks up our children and sends them off to school is a socialist idea, certainly not a capitalist one. Its all around you, im sure--especially in the US. So settle down with the fantacism. If our country was entirely capitalist, and im glad it isnt, your house would burn down unless you paid your membership fees to the local corporate fireman. Devout capitalists see no boundaries to markets.
Still, it is also true that the US promotes a world capitalist system to the world. Its also true that we have not merely a capitalist system, but corporate capitalism not competetive capitalism. And its not really something to be proud of either. This system awards the top 1% with all the spoils of labor, the labor they dont do, CEO's make increasingly exorbitant amounts of money, widening the gap between rich and poor to new levels.
On the other hand, our own economic development has led to major ecological degradation here and abroad--and certainly contributes to global warming. The scientific community, meanwhile, is roughly 99% in some agreement, but definitely on the point that global warming is real. The 1% who doesnt agree with this are generally on the payroll of big oil or big business. Its flagrant hypocrisy, but what else is new. If you can prove any different to me, I want the evidence.
Until then I have reviewed the debate, and because I am not a earth scientist or anything near that, I will go with the 99% percent of the scientific community who work independently of Halliburton or ExxonMobil, and come to conclusions objectively. Moreover, these scientist have concluded that the leading cause is human made.
President Bush will never agree to the Kyoto Protocols because the corporations would not have it. He cant even make them enforce better security for our nuclear and chemical facilities here in the US, to prevent a terrorist walking in and creating large-scale devastation. Thats the most hypocritical thing about American capitalism. Our wonderful objectives like making America safe, or helping out the working class, just aren't consistent with out corporate-capitalist system. Asking a company to add seceurity, or update features to prevent a catastrophe, is just unreasonable, because it cuts into profits. And we cant have that.
Need more proof? The US is fighting a "war on terror" and needs new, sophisticated weaponry that minimizes collateral damage and is built for fighting terrorists, not German squadrons, but Lockheed Martin is unwilling to move towards new weaponry because of the expected lull in production and loss of profits for its armed forces clients. What would it do with the old equipment? Instead it keeps selling the old crap to the Air Force and we the people keep buying their junk. A Congressman objects, and Lockheed threatens to move and take its large workforce, thus making the elected official unpopular. This is our democracy, just so you know.
You are right. I have not provided my sources on this thread. I have provided considerable info in articles I posted. Check them out. I spent a few years looking at the data and analyzing what the creator of the hockey stick did. My conclusion was that there is no science involved in what Mann contended, he was unwilling to provide his model's software, and his conclusions (the hockey stick) could easily be refuted. What is happening to polar bears, glaciers, et al have happened before.
To disagree with global warming proponents is to open yourself to great harassment. IMHO, any science which must resort to such in order to support itself is not science but as Senator Inhofe said its a hoax. The poster child for this is evolution.
As concerns U.S. oil and gas resources, current estimates are 80% off limits to development.
You seem to think that quoting a lot of sources makes something true. The record of history clearly indicates that the majority are almost always wrong about everything. The reason is that there are so many people trying to climb on the bandwagon and only a few who are willing to actually perform the analysis and come to their own conclusions. I have spent years in highly technical pursuits and consider myself able to evaluate most supposed science by analyzing the pros and cons and the science itself. I know nothing of your own credentials for so doing, but I am certain that quoting sources is not a way to discover the truth.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
What would it hurt to decrease our dependence on Oil? Nothing. Would the average American loose money because of it? No they would not. Would the World be a cleaner place? Definitely it would. Would other Countries look at our advancements, marvel at & buy the technology? Absolutely they would!
Therefore what you have is people on "one side" saying there is no problem, with nothing to back themselves up, nothing to gain for their childish rhetoric, & totally with their heads in the sand, making insults to try to prove their points.
On the other side you have well read, intelligent people, with concern for the future of all Mankind, who do not sink so low as to name call.
Therefore I ask you reader... which of these two types of people would you wish to make future plans with involving your Country & Children's future?
Make sure you get to the Polls & make your decision heard!
If we do something & you are wrong, we became safer, wealthier, World leaders & save the Planet Earth from such catastrophic damage as predicted.
I will let the reader decide the best choice & road to follow.
The Causes of Global Warming
Global warming is the result of human activities that are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, creating the "enhanced" greenhouse effect and an increase in the earth's average temperature. The following is an examination of the causes and effects of the various greenhouse gases.
Carbon Dioxide
A rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is responsible for over 60% of the "enhanced" greenhouse effect (Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control). Since the 1800s, carbon dioxide levels have increased by 30%. The primary cause has been the burning of fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil and gas) by industry and automobiles. These fuels contain carbon and release carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Deforestation also releases carbon dioxide.
Methane
Methane emissions contribute to 15-20% of the "enhanced" greenhouse effect. The main source of methane is agriculture, in particular, flooded rice patties and herds of cattle. Other sources of methane emissions include waste dumps, coal mining, and natural gas production.
Other Gases
Nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and ozone contribute the remaining 20% of the "enhanced" greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxide is produced by intensive agriculture. Ozone is the result of air pollution. CFCs are the result of refrigeration systems, air conditioners, and plastic foam manufacturing. While increasing in the 1990s, CFC levels have peaked due to emission controls under the Montreal Protocol.
Greenhouse gas emissions, 1991 (000 metric tons)
CO2 emissions from
Methane from anthropogenic sources
industrial processes land use change Solid Waste Coal Mining Oil and Gas Wet Rice Livestock Total
World 22,339,408 4,100,000 43,000 36,000 44,000 69,000 81,000 270,000
Africa 715,773 730,000 1,700 1,700 6,000 2,400 9,000 21,000
Europe 6,866,494 11,000 17,000 6,600 15,000 420 14,000 53,000
North & Central America 5,715,466 190,000 11,000 6,100 8,200 590 9,200 35,000
South America 605,029 1,800,000 2,200 280 2,200 870 15,000 21,000
Asia 7,118,317 1,300,000 9,900 20,000 12,000 65,000 30,000 140,000
Oceania 297,246 38,000 690 1,400 310 75 3,300 5,800
(Source: World Resources Institute, as cited in World Resources 199697, pp. 326329)
STUDY BOLSTERS GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY, SOLVES ICE AGE MYSTERY
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth's climate.
Matthew Saltzman
In Thursday's issue of the journal Geology, Ohio State University scientists report that a long-ago ice age occurred 10 million years earlier than once thought. The new date clears up an inconsistency that has dogged climate change research for years.
Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, explained Matthew Saltzman, assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio State.
Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth's surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn't a good time for growing ice.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age. For Saltzman, the find solves a long-standing mystery.
Critics have pointed to the inconsistency as a flaw in scientists' theories of climate change. Scientists have argued that today's global climate change has been caused in part by buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel emissions.
But, critics have countered, if CO2 truly raises global temperatures, how could an ice age have occurred when a greenhouse effect much greater than today's was in full swing?
The answer: This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.
"Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate."
Saltzman and doctoral student Seth Young found that large deposits of quartz sand in Nevada and two sites in Europe -- Norway and Estonia -- formed around the same time, 440 million years ago. The scientists suspect that the sand formed when water levels fell low enough to expose quartz rock, so that wind and rain could weather the rock into sand.
The fact that the deposits were found in three different sites suggests that sea levels may have been low all over the world at that time, likely because much of the planet's water was bound in ice at the poles, Saltzman said.
Next, the scientists examined limestone sediments from the sites and determined that there was a relatively large amount of organic carbon buried in the oceans -- and, by extension, relatively little CO2 in the atmosphere -- at the same time.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age.
For Saltzman, the find solves a long-standing mystery.
Though scientists know with a great degree of certainty that atmospheric CO2 levels drive climate change, there are certain mismatches in the geologic record, such as the Ordovician ice age -- originally thought to have begun 443 million years ago -- that seem to counter that view.
"How can you have ice when CO2 levels are through the roof? That was the dilemma that we were faced with. I think that now we have good evidence that resolves this mismatch," Saltzman said.
Scientists at the three sites previously attributed these quartz deposits to local tectonic shifts. But the new study shows that the conditions that allowed the quartz sand to form were not local.
"If sea level is dropping globally at the same time, it can't be a local tectonic feature," Saltzman said. "It's got to be the result of a global ice buildup."
Saltzman wants to bolster these new results by examining sites in Russia -- where he hopes to find more evidence of sea level drop -- and in parts of South America and North Africa, which would have been covered in ice at the time.
Global Warming
world map showing surface temperature anomalies in 2005
Map showing the global surface temperature anomaly in 2005. Accoring to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 2005 was one of the warmest years in over a century. Click image to enlarge.
Image credit: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What is it?
Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
Factors
Greenhouse Gases
The increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity is often cited as one of the major causes of global warming. These greenhouse gases reabsorb heat reflected from the Earth's surface, thus trapping the heat in our atmosphere. This natural process is essential for life on Earth because it plays an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. However, over the last several hundred years, humans have been artificially increasing the concentration of these gases, mainly carbon dioxide and methane in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases build up and prevent additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth, thereby trapping excess heat.
Power plants, cattle, and cars
"Power plants, cattle, and cars are some of the major contributors of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane."- Earth Observatory Global Warming Article
Image Credit: NASA's Earth Observatory
Solar Variability & Global Warming
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.
sun image EITSolar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.
Trends & Effects
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), average global temperatures may increase by 1.4-5.8ºC by the end of the 21st century. Although the numbers sound small, they can trigger significant changes in climate. (The difference between global temperatures during an Ice Age and an ice-free period is only about 5ºC.) Besides resulting in more hot days, many scientists believe an increase in temperatures may lead to changes in precipitation and weather patterns. Warmer ocean water may result in more intense and frequent tropical storms and hurricanes. Sea levels are also expected to increase by 0.09 - 0.88 m. in the next century, mainly from melting glaciers and expanding seawater . Global warming may also affect wildlife and species that cannot survive in warmer environments may become extinct. Finally, human health is also at stake, as global warming may result in the spreading of certain diseases such as malaria, the flooding of major cities, a greater risk of heat stroke for individuals, and poor air quality.
Where Do I Learn More?
You might find the following resources useful:
Global Warming -- Frequently Asked Questions
This site put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gives a brief synopsis of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council's 2001 report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, as well as National Climatic Data Center's data resources.
"Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" by William F. Ruddiman; Princeton University Press (2005); ISBN: 0691121648
An excellent book, written by one of the world's top paleoclimatologists, but understandable to both scientist and nonscientists alike. Ruddiman summarizes, explains with research and facts, and places in context the influence of humans on atmospheric composition, climate and global warming. His focus is on the big picture -- changes to climate over the last 400,000 years with special attention to changes beginning 8,000 years ago. He makes only brief mention of solar variability as affecting climate (because his focus is on longer trends), but he does an excellent job of describing how small complications in the Earth's orbit cause regular glaciation on 100,000, 41,000, and 22,000 year timeframes. Note that a primary hypothesis of his book is the suggestion that early human agriculture started having an effect on the Earth's climate as early as 8,000 years ago. This is an intriguing idea which is still waiting for further scientific verification or discredit. However, the information in Ruddiman's book is still immensely useful in understanding current global warming and climate change.
"Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+.
This is an article written for scientists. The authors track 9 cycles of changes in solar brightness over the last 1800 years, and then correlate these with various changes in the Earth's climate. As you undoubtedly know, an especially suspicious correlation is that of a period of no sunspots (and hence low solar activity) corresponding with the Maunder Minimum of ~1645 to 1715 A.D, a period of extreme cold in Europe. Because of the complexity of effects on the Earth's climate, the jury is still out on whether this period of a Little Ice Age was indeed caused by the lack of solar activity. However, the correlations are intriguing and continue to be discussed at scientific meetings such as the AGU. You can find lots more about the Maunder Minimum and its relationship to sunspots on the web.
For more information on global warming in general and student activities and research topics in particular, visit:
* An MSN news report that Earth warmest in at least 400 years, panel finds and a related CNN story Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years
* The Exploratorium's Global Climate Change website.
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site
* Conservation Science Institute Ocean initiative -- Check out their Global Climate Change page.
* The Role of the Sun in Climate Change by Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth Schatten; Oxford University Press, 1997. ISBN: 0195094131
* Web-based student activities. Designed to help students investigate global warming using web-based resources.
* The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Includes information about current research related to global warming.
* Global Warming- Overview of global warming (NASA Earth Observatory).
* Primate evolution linked to global warming says new study- New research suggests the ancient climate change fueled early primate evolution (mongabay.com).
Me thinks you don't read too well. You obviously missed:
This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
You also also missed:
MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, far too small to have a significant effect on the concentration of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
FACT: Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 emitted from large natural sources closely matched the amount that was removed through natural processes. That balance has now been upset by human activities, which since the Industrial Revolution have put twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as can be readily removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in the accumulation of CO2 to the highest levels in 420,000 years.
MYTH: The Earth's warming is caused by natural factors like increased sunlight and sunspots or decreased cosmic rays, not by greenhouse gases (GHGs).
FACT: Modeling studies indicate that most of the warming over the past several decades was probably caused by the increase in human-produced GHGs. Climate models have difficulty reproducing the observed temperature changes over the past 150 years unless they account for the increase in GHGs as well as natural factors, such as sunlight and volcanic eruptions, and changes in the amount of human-produced sulfate particles, which cool the planet. Satellite measurements of the intensity of sunlight exhibit little or no trend over the past 25 years, when there was rapid warming on Earth. The purported correlations between the amount of cosmic rays and Earth's temperature are the result of flawed analysis methods.
As well you missed :
• Sea levels have risen and fallen many times over the Earth's long geological history. Average global sea level has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20cm) over the past century according to the IPCC.
The IPCC's 2001 report projects that sea level could rise between 4 and 35 inches (10 to 89cm) by century's end. Such rises could have major effects for coastal dwellers. A 1.5-foot (50-centimeter) sea level rise in flat coastal areas would cause a typical coastline retreat of 150 feet (50 meters).
Worldwide some 100 million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could promote flooding in many South Sea islands, while in the U.S. Florida and Louisiana are at risk. The Indian Ocean nation of Maldives has a maximum elevation of only 8 feet (2.5 meters). Construction of a sea wall around the capital, Male, was driven by vulnerability to the rising tides.
Yet you keep your head in the sand mike & never mind when your backside feels wet.
On the other hand, I agree that we should do something to reduce emissions. Until someone can make an electric SUV for the same price as my GMC YUKON XL V8, well you get the point.
It is possible to filter out the emissions from that SUV right now with a cut of 25%, just as they recently passed the law in California. It is California's new law that will be the template for what Canada is going to put in place, along with other States of the USA.
The difference? In Canada it will be the Federal Government making it law, therefore affecting all of Canada & in the USA, Bush is basically doing "nothing" but to find & control more Oil!
Yet you could go further than that & turn that SUV over to Propane or Natural Gas, thereby lowering your cost of fuel by a "wide margin" & lowering emissions by 100%!
The major problem with this solution? There are not enough Gas Stations set up that handle either Propane or Natural Gas right now, & there will not be unless the Federal Government legislates it, that in order to sell Gasoline, you also have to offer "alternative fuels".
I am not suggesting we force present Gas Stations to go through "Major Renovations", but merely to legislate that "future Gas Stations" offer these alternative fuels, or at least one "alternative fuel" to give people the choice. How hard is that?
Such a move would allow the consumer to convert their vehicle they have to one of these other fuels resulting in vast savings for the same consumer.
In the case of Natural Gas, the conversion would cost less than $5,000.00 (that cost lowered further with the more people who do it) & the savings for the average consumer would mount to as much or more than 50% less than they are paying right now for fuel.
Now if you take the average persons spending yearly in fuel & cut it by 50%, then you end up finding the cost of the conversion paid for itself, usually within the first year!
At that rate, the Oil Companies could raise the cost of Gasoline to double what it is today, & you still would be saving money, simply by using "Natural Gas" dropping emissions drastically!
Meanwhile you are boosting the economy by having a bunch of "spin off" industries starting up to fulfill the new need. Such an easy & smart solution.
As for mike, that 50 ft would put Miami miles off shore, New Orleans totally under water, along with most of New York City.
If you don't care of the millions of people displaced, or the many forms of wildlife destroyed for future generations, & you don't care about the higher temperatures, or the massive storms that will result, if you don't care about the increase in forest fires & the regions turned to desert, nor do you care about the human life lost because of Global Warming, then sure. Just preach "do nothing" & that it is "Gods will"!
Yet I am hoping that the average person who reads this thread IS concerned with these things & sees clearly how easy it would be to change things. I am hoping they will see that it would only be a boost to the economy as well.
I am hoping they will see that even being in the Middle East is the wrong direction to be going, & that the easiest way to stop terrorism from affecting us here in North America is to do that.
For them, they might see that working on Global Warming might be a better goal & I hope they find it appealing enough to go to the polls & vote in the people who will put such things into place. Then you can just live with the better World we created.
Polar Bears are eating Polar Bears for the first time in history & drowning trying to swim to the ice flows. They feed from seals who come up through air holes in the ice, but they are drowning trying to swim to those ice flows. That is just one, but as mentioned, there are others. Sea creatures are developing diseases & dieing, forest fires are raging more than before this year in the USA, the ice packs are melting, changes to the Prairies in Canada are evident. Most of it is in the stuff I already posted.
Yet if you don't wish to read what is posted, I don't really want to keep repeating myself. It cannot hurt to tackle Global Warming, only help all of us. Those who want to sit back & say there is "no problem" are not helping. Those not changing what they do to the environment are hurting all of us.
Good effort, but I think these folks are not going to be convinced - at least by science.
I wonder if they will listen to "conservative" leaders and industry leaders, who are urging action on global warming. One is former Sec. of State, James Baker:
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7250
Or maybe expand the issue to include national security, as former CIA Chief, James Woolsey, does:
http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=19841
Of course, there are always industry leaders:
BP Chairman, John Browne:
http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/indepth-energy-browne.php
Shell Oil president, John Hofmeister:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733060/
Duke Energy president, Paul Anderson:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-31-business-globalwarming_x.htm
It also can not hurt to become less dependant on Oil economically, no matter what side of the argument you are on.
People who read the 2001 IPCC report and the 2001 NAS report can see that the panels of scientists doing the research and reviewing the research state that global warming is occuring and is contributed to significantly by human activity. That's what the panels state. So people who pay attention to these scientific panels can see that there is a need to change how we do things.
Additionally, people who pay attention to national security issues can read opinions of those who have been in the national security business, like Woolsey, and see that they say we need to move post haste to free ourselves of our dependency on oil.
Many industry leaders dispute the notion that addressing global warming will hurt the economy. In fact, there is the opposing notion that addressing global warming will spur technological advancement, create jobs and products for export - just as we saw with information technology.
So I do not understand the reasons for not addressing global warming and our dependence on fossil fuel -- except, of course, the investments of those who presently own stock in Exxon. BTW, if I had stock in Exxon, I would probably be selling soon. The prospects of lawsuits on the horizon stand a good chance of driving the value of those stocks down. Basis for lawsuits? Exxon has taken an active role in suppressing information and the need for change.
Cutting emissions can in no way harm the planet. In no way hurt the economy. In no way hurt the environment.
It can only create jobs, increase security (since there will be no reason to be in places like the Middle East), improve the economy & make it a cleaner Earth. Sounds like a good idea to me!
You go on believing you know more than 85% of Scientists & go on thinking USA's presence in Iraq could possibly do any good. I hope Santa Claus visits you this year as well.
Where did you get 85%? There you go making stuff up again.
Anyways, I was in Kuwait a month ago and it got up to 136 F, and to be honest it wasn't that bad. I was happy because I hate wearing jackets.
I see these petite suburban women dwarfed by these things they can't drive for squat and putting the rest of us in mortal danger due to their bad driving of this huge deadly weapon.
Then I see macho assholes driving this huge hemi trucks that can't even fit into a parking space because OBVIOUSLY these guys have some sort of inferiority issue.
Whether you "believe in" global warming or not (which isn't really important - your BELIEF in it, since the weather will get worse regardless of your "belief") - we are dependent on foreign oil that is running out and THAT DEPENDENCY is bad for America in the long run.
So stop buying gas guzzling cars and support alternative fuels. It's the PATRIOTIC thing to do.
Although I appreciate your excellent documentation this time on the Global Warming issue, I have to point out one thing here. Scientists doing these planetary studies are only taking a very short range of time into account. As many of your own articles have stated, the planet goes through periods of warming, then cooling…………in cycles. In the 20th Century, the planet experienced .06 of one degree of warming. However, in the 19th Century, the planet experienced .20 of one degree of cooling.
A change of 4 degrees caused the last major shift in global temperatures, called a 'mini-Ice Age', and that was in the 1650-1730 AD time period. We aren't anywhere near that.
And by the way, this planet has an extraordinary amount of climatic resiliency. During the creation of this planet, the temperature shifts were 15 degrees per century. No wonder why this planet had such turmoil.
* Earth Becomes Greener as Climate Changes
* By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says
* Melting Arctic Bogs May Hasten Warming, Study Says
* Arctic Melting Fast; May Swamp U.S. Coasts by 2099
* Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level?
* You Can Fight Global Warming, Authors Urge
• There is little doubt that the planet is warming. Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world.
The spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9 days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.
• The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.
• Over the last million years the Earth has fluctuated between colder and warmer periods. The shifts have occurred in roughly 100,000-year intervals thought to be regulated by sunlight. Earth's sunlight quota depends upon its orbit and celestial orientation.
But changes have also occurred more rapidly in the past—and scientists hope that these changes can tell us more about the current state of climate change. During the last ice age, approximately 70,000 to 11,500 years ago, ice covered much of North America and Europe—yet sudden, sometimes drastic, climate changes occurred during the period. Greenland ice cores indicate one spike in which the area's surface temperature increased by 15 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) in just 10 years.
• Where do scientists find clues to past climate change? The tale is told in remnant materials like glacial ice and moraines, pollen-rich mud, stalagmites, the rings of corals and trees, and ocean sediments that yield the shells of microscopic organisms. Human history yields clues as well, through records like ancient writings and inscriptions, gardening and vintner records, and the logs of historic ships.
• Rising temperatures have a dramatic impact on Arctic ice, which serves as a kind of "air conditioner" at the top of the world. Since 1978 Arctic sea ice area has shrunk by some 9 percent per decade, and thinned as well.
I read your stuff. Many of the articles state clearly that this is just part of the planetary cycle.
I'm sure that back in 1650, when Winters were colder and longer, people thought God was punishing them for being wicked. But they were looking only at a very narrow timeframe.
.06 of one degree Fahrenheit warming is pretty small over 100 years.............and so is .20 of cooling over 100 years.
And of course, when the Winters shortened and the Summers got longer, they prayed fiercely to God, thanking him for his help. But once again, they were short-term thinkers.
And I fear, so are you.
The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.
• The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.
Good! How would you do it?
it seems we may have come to a sort of consensus here?"
Superb! Reduce emissions - get out of the mideast - great! I agree.
How?
I know the question was not for me, but California has just passed laws cutting emissions by 25%, & have facts on how it is not only good for the environment, but good for the economy too. Other States are going to adopt the same kinds of measures, & Canada is going to base a Federal Program on California's template. A darn good start if you ask me.
Get out of Iraq? Easy. Announce "We are re-deploying our troops to Kuwait as we think the Government needs to take control of this themselves" Then see if anyone wants to invade. If so... come back in & kick their ass with World backing!
Good news in CA, and you are right that other states will follow. Thanks for the info. that Canada will do the same. I hope industry will not challenge this in court the way the auto industry has challenged CA's attempt to reduce auto emissions. The industry action was supported by the Bush administration - I thought Republicans were for states rights.
Bush did do one thing right, though. After his "America is addicted to oil" speech, he visited a company called ECD Ovonics. They have been working on solar and hydrogen energy for decates. I think they have some promising solutions.
http://www.ovonics.com/
Former VP Gore just suggested a carbon tax instead of an income tax,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14906118/
which was also suggested by Paul Anderson of Duke Energy in SC:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-31-business-globalwarming_x.htm
Iraq looks like it's going to be (already is) a blood bath. It will probably be that whether the U.S. is there or not. It is a situation much worse than Vietnam because of the oil, and the proximity of Iraq to Iran, coupled with warm relations with Venezuela. If you think gas prices were high this summer, just wait until Iraq, Iran and Venezuela are able to significantly influence world supply. Even so, I think we should pull out - for our own self-interest.
mike e. makes a good point. We may get pulled back in - especially if we cannot come up with alternatives to oil - quickly. My sense, though, is that when national security was at stake in the early 60s, the U.S. focused its resources on its space program, which had substantial security and economic benefits. We could make the switch to other energy sources if the political will and leadership were there.
In Ontario they have a good supply of Natural Gas Stations, & how that works is that you run on both gas & natural gas. You have the power when you need it, switching to gas, but on the highway, you cruise on Natural Gas. It cuts your fuel costs by as much as 50%, more if you do a lot of highway driving. Bi-product is water. Any gas vehicle can be switched to natural gas for under $5,000.00 & the savings pay for itself inside of 1 year.
2/3 of any oil well is natural gas. Alberta Canada has enough Natural Gas "capped" right now to turn every car, stove, fridge, furnace in North America over to it, & the capped supply would last all of us 100 years!
Actually, that's what impressed me so much about ECD Ovonics. They have developed a metal alloy that stores hydrogen "like a sponge." No need for high pressurized storage tanks. I first saw this on PBS "Scientific American" with Alan Alda. This link includes a video of the program that if very interesting.
In CA, Ahh-nold is promoting the "hydrogen highway." I would like to see that promoted in more states. I think it is absolutely feasible to include a hydrogen pump at every gas station. I mean, after all, Exxon completely tore down and rebuilt all of their gas stations in my geographical area about ten years ago. I don't care if it is mandated by legislation or promoted by tax incentives.
You're right - "No more need for oil, no need for Iraq or Venezuela, & no need to bug Iran." But I'd prefer hydrogen to natural gas and propane.
One other thing on hydrogen. Your vehicle can be a solar collector, so that while you're parked, your car can actually be feeding the grid.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/segments/1506-1.htm
I know, as I am very impressed with Hydrogen! So cheap to make! Solar Power & Salt Water is all you need.
Back in the early 80's I saw a man on Johnny Carson (dating me) & he made 2 cars to run on Hydrogen. He drove them both cross Country LA - New York & back. Total cost per car? $3.17 !
He told Johnny he then approached the Federal Government & showed them his design. No response from them but soon after he was getting calls from Oil Companies wanting to buy his technology. He refused to sell. Next he started to get threatened.
He said "Right now I have my family in an undisclosed place, surrounded by wall with Guards! I just want the public to know that the Oil Companies are after me & if you never hear from me again... you know what happened"!
I never heard from that Man again.
Yet the way to get it going is to make the people vote in the people who will do something about this! You might not be able to fight off the Oil Companies at first by going "totally Hydrogen", but as long as we begin by lowering emissions, hydrogen will have to be an option. As other fuels pop up, they (Oil Companies) cannot stop all the forms of alternate fuels & will have to accept that they are in a dieing industry.
My only dream!
Well finally we agree on something.
I would love to see the oil companies go away.
I would also love to see the Middle East regress back to the sleepy backwaters they were in 1850 before we discovered oil there.
The politics of the world would change forever.
Exactly. Hydrogen also silences critics of solar and wind energy, who say that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind is not always blowing. Solar and wind can be stored as hydrogen. It could not only power our cars, but provide electricity. And an added advantage would be that our energy infrastructure would be decentralized (distributed), so that there is no vulnerability to attack, as there would be with nuclear plants. You also would have no radioactive waste, as with nuclear.
The possibilities and technology are there. I think this is a non-partisan issue, because there are Democrats and Republicans that support this. Even Bush went to ECD Ovonics. But it has to be driven with policy, and I agree, government has to play a role in making these changes - just like development of information technology.
The Government Created the Internet…Can't It Help Solar Power, Too?
http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/3103.html
However you know the dilemma. The power of the Oil Companies is great! Right now, you would not be in business politically if there was no Oil Money backing you! Very strong lobby indeed! Therefore what people need to do is to run on a Campaign that they will not take a dime of Oil Money to get into power! Now after the first few deaths, I am sure we can get someone to stand up for the "right thing" to do!