Global Warming is worse than you think
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 02-04-2004 - 2:43pm |
Unfortunately, global warming is shifting the fragile balances of cold, and warm water, putting us in danger of what Britain's Independent calls a "nightmare scenario where farmland turns to tundra and winter temperatures drop below -20C." A moderate scenario would involve a "little ice age" like the one that hit Europe in 1400 and caused harsh winters, desertification, and drought. Previously, scientists believed that climate change took place over long stretches of time. However, the new research indicates not only that change can happen as rapidly as within a few years, but that this change can be triggered like a light switch.
Unfortunately, this switch is not easy to flip the other way, and the climate shift could cause harsh weather for decades -- or centuries. One would hope that the threat of a permanent change in the climate -- a long-lasting winter -- would cause the Bush administration to call for a war on global warming on the scale of its war on terror. Sadly, while oil execs and automakers are filling his campaign war chest, prospects for that bold move remain chilly.<<
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2004_134/news/11071-1.html
for more:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584-1,00.html
>>Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.
The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade—like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies—thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.<<
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
>>While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.
In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.
Here's how it works. <<

Pages
That's not the issue (here at least). I'm talking about abrupt global climate change and what we can do to make sure that we're adequately prepared for it.
>>f all this "change can be triggered like a light switch" and could happen within the next two or three years, wouldn't it be kind of late now to be able to reverse the "damage" done? <<
Isn't that kind of like saying, N Korea already has nuclear weapons, it's too late to do anything now?
But I'm not talking necessarily about a reversal, but a prevention of a sudden change, or at best, a way to ease the 'shock' that such a transistion can cause.
>>I was not aware that there were planes, trains, and automobiles around in that era. Europeans are still here, aren't they? And for Europe (and supposedly the rest of the world) being desertified just 600 years ago, it is mighty wet and lush over here in Germany, and last time I checked it was like that in much of the U.S. as well. Quick recovery, perhaps? Ahh, and it "disrupted worldwide weather patterns"? I wasn't aware that there were meteorologists all over the world recording their findings with all the technology back then that is necessary, for someone to accurately make such a statement. Since there weren't planes, trains, or automobiles, wouldn't that suggest that it was a natural occurrence? What is to say it would not happen again, naturally? <<
Well, being a low-tech society back then, it would have been easier to adapt. Should we be forced to do without our planes, trains and automobiles, could we?
Also, the world wasn't desertified 600 years ago. A 'little ice age' hit Europe in 1400, causing some desertification and harsh winters. Even 600 years ago, people were aware of changes in their climate (perhaps more so, given how reliant they were on it for agriculture). They didn't have artificial means of climate control or gor-tex and they had less control over the land - they would have felt changes more acutely.
We can probably withstand more than Europeans in the 1400, but we have a breaking point too. Why not turn a little more attention to the issue (as those at the Pentagon seem to have done) and see what we can uncover?
BTW, weren't we all supposed to be overpopulated, starved, and freezing to death (due to an impending ice age) by now according to the scientists in the 70's? Whatever happened to *their* dire predictions and warnings? Now we have global warming. What is it supposed to be already?!?! These conflicting scenarios cancel each other out so my prediction is that more scare tactics will come and go abetted by gullible folks.
conflicting in what way? if you read the original article for this post, the idea is that global warming will lead to this 'mini-ice age'.
and as for the cause... well, i suppose i'll say this yet again. that's not the issue here. i find it interesting that my questioning how prepared we are in the case of abrupt climate change yields multiple posts from the conservatives of the board about how human factors play no part in global warming. i'm glad you all think that (and the knee-jerk defensiveness is rather amusing), but can we stop playing partisan politics and get back to the issue at hand?
<>
Big difference.
Miffy
Sorry, I should have added a disclaimer to that particular article saying that I thought that statement was misleading... I think there's consensus that there was some desertification, but the way the author states it, it seems as though the entire world dried up.
>>What do you think we should do about this? <<
I'm a big fan of R & D. I don't think there's any reason why we can't turn more of a focus to further exploring alternate sources of energy. Currently, solar and wind power are not feasible because (among other things) oil and gas is cheaper - but I think we can look into ways to make 'green' sources of energy more attractive. Of course, part of that would involve reducing the impact of the oil & gas lobby... But I think it's in our best interests to be able to provide various 'greenhouse gas free' options to future generations.
As for abrupt climate change - it would have to depend on the form it would take. Do we need to create evacuation plans for the millions who would be displaced if coastal cities were hit by rising ocean levels? Can we create filtration systems to combat the possible issue of the loss of accessible drinking water (already an issue in many parts of the world)? We already saw what happened when temperatures rose in a Europe without air conditioning... What about a Europe not adequately equipped to deal with large drops in temperature?
One thing I do know is that Kyoto should be abandoned and instead funds should be put into providing clean drinking water for the world's population, alternate sources of energy for developing nations (can you imagine what would happen if China's 1 billion people decided they'd rather drive than bike?), and decent public health infrastructures all over the world.
>>See why I think it is kind of too late to do anything about it if it is going to happen in just two or three years? If something was going to be done, it should have been done years ago.<<
I believe climate change and global warming are issues that have been around for several decades and are always being pushed off because we 'don't have to worry about it yet'. Now it's 'too late'?
A friend sent me this link.............
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000722.html
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/103606.php
Opened the links you posted & read the opinions.
This whole issue
From Libraone's postL
"Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public".
"Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington "systematically" skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues.
"Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated. "
The Bush administration despite the reputation for honesty, integrity and straight-talking is the most deceptive I've ever seen. I would expect them to spread the misinformation that it's a hoax. There is a problem. The question is how serious and how extensive it will be.
Pages