Global Warming

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,622
0
0
I agree that global warming is real. I don't know or care whether it's man made. It's a real problem, therefore we should try our best to efficiently deal with the problem. There will be mistakes made, but we have to do something to keep our climate the way we like it.

Let me know what you think, and how can we go about doing so efficiently?


Source

Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years

By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press – 5 hrs ago


WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study looking at 11,000 years of climate temperatures shows the world in the middle of a dramatic U-turn, lurching from near-record cooling to a heat spike.
Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures back to the end of the last ice age. It shows how the globe for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.
Scientists say it is further evidence that modern-day global warming isn't natural, but the result of rising carbon dioxide emissions that have rapidly grown since the Industrial Revolution began roughly 250 years ago.

The decade of 1900 to 1910 was one of the coolest in the past 11,300 years — cooler than 95 percent of the other years, the marine fossil data suggest. Yet 100 years later, the decade of 2000 to 2010 was one of the warmest, said study lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University. Global thermometer records only go back to 1880, and those show the last decade was the hottest for this more recent time period.

"In 100 years, we've gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum," Marcott said. "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."

Using fossils from all over the world, Marcott presents the longest continuous record of Earth's average temperature. One of his co-authors last year used the same method to look even farther back. This study fills in the crucial post-ice age time during early human civilization.

Marcott's data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don't show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies.
Before this study, continuous temperature record reconstruction only went back about 2,000 years. The temperature trend produces a line shaped like a "hockey stick" with a sudden spike after what had been a fairly steady line. That data came from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments.

Marcott wanted to go farther back, to the end of the last ice age in more detail by using the same marine fossil method his colleague used. That period also coincides with a "really important time for the history of our planet," said Smithsonian Institution research anthropologist Torben Rick. That's the time when people started to first domesticate animals and start agriculture, which is connected to the end of the ice age.

Marcott's research finds the climate had been gently warming out of the ice age with a slow cooling that started about 6,000 years ago.
Then the cooling reversed with a vengeance.

The study shows the recent heat spike "has no precedent as far back as we can go with any confidence, 11,000 years arguably," said Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann, who wrote the original hockey stick study but wasn't part of this research. He said scientists may have to go back 125,000 years to find warmer temperatures potentially rivaling today's.

However, another outside scientist, Jeff Severinghaus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography thinks temperatures may have been notably warmer just 12,000 years ago, at least in Greenland based on research by some of his colleagues.

Several outside scientists praised the methods Marcott used, but said it might be a bit too oriented toward the Northern Hemisphere.
Marcott said the general downward trend of temperatures that reversed 100 years ago seemed to indicate the Earth was heading either toward another ice age or little ice age from about 1550 to 1850. Or it was continuing to cool naturally until greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels changed everything.

The reason the globe warmed after the ice age and then started cooling about 6,000 years ago has to do with the tilt of the Earth and its distance from the sun, said Marcott and Severinghaus. Distance and angle in the summer matter because of heat absorption and reflection and ground cover.

"We have, through human emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, indefinitely delayed the onset of the next ice age and are now heading into an unknown future where humans control the thermostat of the planet," said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, responding in an email.
___
Online:
Science: http://www.sciencemag.org
___
Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Just as we once had an issue with tobacco where a majority of Americans used it and it was bad for them, and we had people acting in the public interest trying to say not to use it while we had people who made money from its use spend big bucks to try to mislead people and get them to use it, we now have global warming where what's good for people is to try to reduce it, and we have massively wealthy corporations who make money by not addressing it, who spend a fortune to mislead people on the issue.

It's pretty much that simple.

In both cases, many lives are lost because the money is pretty effective.

It's a weakness of our democracy that the truth is fought so hard.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,248
14,825
146
To fix it I'd suggest the following

Short term
Increase power generation for the 3rd world. Preferring more wind and solar but also more nukes, natural gas and even coal

Increase access to water, food and education.

Continue improving efficiency of our different power sources

As people become more educated and healthy they have less kids reducing world population and reducing demand for power.

Turn off greenhouse gas producing power sources as demand drops from efficiency increases and lower population.

Monitor the environment and begin using more greenhouse emitting power sources if it looks like we're headed back towards another ice age
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
To fix it I'd suggest the following

Short term
Increase power generation for the 3rd world. Preferring more wind and solar but also more nukes, natural gas and even coal

Increase access to water, food and education.

Continue improving efficiency of our different power sources

As people become more educated and healthy they have less kids reducing world population and reducing demand for power.

Turn off greenhouse gas producing power sources as demand drops from efficiency increases and lower population.

Monitor the environment and begin using more greenhouse emitting power sources if it looks like we're headed back towards another ice age

The problem is that you can't continue to improve efficiency of coal and natural gas. There is a physical limit to the efficiency, and we're about as close (afaik) as we are going to get. Cars aren't necessarily getting more efficient because we're making better motors - the efficiency gains in vehicles are because we're using regenerative braking systems (don't lose that energy), and decreasing the power output (shutting down cylinders) when the vehicle is at highway cruising speeds, making vehicles lighter, etc. But, vehicles are quite a bit different - we're changing the power requirements - that's the gain in efficiency. With power plants, they have to produce x-amount of power, and they really can't do much to increase the efficiency of doing so.

Increasing access to water and food in 3rd world nations is going to have an effect of greatly increasing their rate of population growth, far before their population growth levels off. While this is a solution, it's a long term solution - a very long term solution. Earth is already arguably over-populated. I'm not sure it's even possible to provide the entire population the same "quality of life" that the typical person in the U.S. enjoys, due to a scarcity of resources. I do agree that education is one of the most important aspects.

The U.S. is educated. Our population is not declining. The majority of the educated world doesn't have a declining population, though there are a few countries that are declining. It's important to note that in many of the counties on this (short) list, that education isn't the primary reason for the declining population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline At today's rate of fossil fuel dependence, it's too much (allegedly, and I agree.) To get back down to today's population, after the population increases for a few more decades? You're projecting out at least 100 years.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
There's a complicating factor to all this.

People talk about 'peak oil' in terms of 'how much do we have left before it's all used'.

But climate scientists say that we have to stop using the oil in the ground long before we run out, or it's have terrible problems.

They say we can't afford to use more than about 20% of what's left, at all.

So how do we get energy companies to stop extracting and refinging that oil?

At this point, there is no way to do that politically. Political support is needed to get that passed, which is exactly what the companies are spending to prevent.

And that's just the US - other countries that are developing are a threat as well.

It's not that hard to imagine that, like cigarettes, the US might come around on the issue only to find that other countries refuse to do so.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,225
4,461
136
And that's just the US - other countries that are developing are a threat as well.

It's not that hard to imagine that, like cigarettes, the US might come around on the issue only to find that other countries refuse to do so.

This is the biggest problem of them all. There is no way we are going to get developing nations to agree to stop using the fuel source we used to bootstrap our way to a first world nation. The energy density of oil is just to high. We are not likely to find a solution that is both cheaper and just as effective as oil.

So, while America might be able to eventually convince it's citizens to accept the added cost of going to alternative, more 'green' power sources, we will never convince China or India to do so.
And if they are not on board, then we have done very little to solve the problem.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,248
14,825
146
The problem is that you can't continue to improve efficiency of coal and natural gas. There is a physical limit to the efficiency, and we're about as close (afaik) as we are going to get. Cars aren't necessarily getting more efficient because we're making better motors - the efficiency gains in vehicles are because we're using regenerative braking systems (don't lose that energy), and decreasing the power output (shutting down cylinders) when the vehicle is at highway cruising speeds, making vehicles lighter, etc. But, vehicles are quite a bit different - we're changing the power requirements - that's the gain in efficiency. With power plants, they have to produce x-amount of power, and they really can't do much to increase the efficiency of doing so.

Increasing access to water and food in 3rd world nations is going to have an effect of greatly increasing their rate of population growth, far before their population growth levels off. While this is a solution, it's a long term solution - a very long term solution. Earth is already arguably over-populated. I'm not sure it's even possible to provide the entire population the same "quality of life" that the typical person in the U.S. enjoys, due to a scarcity of resources. I do agree that education is one of the most important aspects.

The U.S. is educated. Our population is not declining. The majority of the educated world doesn't have a declining population, though there are a few countries that are declining. It's important to note that in many of the counties on this (short) list, that education isn't the primary reason for the declining population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline At today's rate of fossil fuel dependence, it's too much (allegedly, and I agree.) To get back down to today's population, after the population increases for a few more decades? You're projecting out at least 100 years.

Well the rate of growth of the population of the planet is already slowing if I recall. I think policies should be in place to support and accelerate this.

By efficiency, I didn't just mean power plants. I was also including the loads on the power plants.

And yes this solution is basically one requiring a couple of generations. But it seems to me to be the only feasible one that also tries to improve the quality of life for the rest of the planet.

I don't think we have a short term solution.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This is the biggest problem of them all. There is no way we are going to get developing nations to agree to stop using the fuel source we used to bootstrap our way to a first world nation. The energy density of oil is just to high. We are not likely to find a solution that is both cheaper and just as effective as oil.

So, while America might be able to eventually convince it's citizens to accept the added cost of going to alternative, more 'green' power sources, we will never convince China or India to do so.
And if they are not on board, then we have done very little to solve the problem.

Yes, and now is exactly the time when the US could be playing such an important role to use our influence and economic strength to steer and incent those countries to better policies before they commit even more heavily to 'bad' energy infrstructure that will be far less practical for them to change later. Instead we're not leading really at all, being the country that refuses to participate in planning many other countries do.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
It's true that countries like India, China, Brazil, and others will need and demand cheap fossil fuels to expand their economies and standard of living, that doesn't mean the US should do nothing. We can take the lead in energy technology and progress so that we
a) create more, newer, good paying jobs
b) help alleviate some environmental impact (especially locally)
c) are not as subject to the limitations and swings of future fossil fuel economics/supply issues
d) are more energy independent
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
the more straightforward but far too expensive way is to split brine (salt water, see chlor alkali process), collect the h2 for energy purposes, throw the NaOH back into the ocean to reverse ocean acidification which makes the ocean less capable of holding more CO2.

EVERYTHING IS SOLVED!

ok, maybe not everything, but it's a first step....
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,370
8,494
126
to me, it's an engineering problem that's been caught up in politics. sequestration of C02 miles underground is probably the solution. i don't think fossil fuels are going anywhere anytime soon. they offer too much convenience of being a readily used and well understood energy source and energy storage/transport medium.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,299
8,336
136
I agree that global warming is real. I don't know or care whether it's man made. It's a real problem, therefore we should try our best to efficiently deal with the problem. There will be mistakes made, but we have to do something to keep our climate the way we like it.

Let me know what you think, and how can we go about doing so efficiently?

I would argue that point, but perhaps you'd like to focus on the solution side of it.

A bridge in the climate debate – How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change

“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.
Youtube:
Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

I highly recommend watching this, it presents a fascinating idea.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Birth control, or family planning for the religious, is the only cure.

With current technology we can't support the number of people on Earth.

With half the population we could all live much better lives and provide a sustainable ecosystem.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Birth control, or family planning for the religious, is the only cure.

With current technology we can't support the number of people on Earth.

With half the population we could all live much better lives and provide a sustainable ecosystem.

It's not so much the population as that we can't support the population if the US use of energy is copied by more people.

The US with 5% of the population uses, what is it, 25% or more of the energy and resources?

Now take China and Inida and others developing to have more US-like energy use.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,622
0
0
Birth control, or family planning for the religious, is the only cure.

With current technology we can't support the number of people on Earth.

With half the population we could all live much better lives and provide a sustainable ecosystem.

The problem with your solution is that it's just not realistic when applied worldwide unless there is a major shift in global culture by some kind of catastrophe.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,299
8,336
136
The problem with your solution is that it's just not realistic when applied worldwide unless there is a major shift in global culture by some kind of catastrophe.

I suspect that the world's population will force us to sacrifice both lives and living standards as the "catastrophe" to get us to rethink immigration and reproductive rights.

This is off topic from Global Warming, except for the direct implication of a energy / consumer product rich life style for everyone. It's obvious that world population is a direct correlation for how quickly we would affect climate. Halve or double it and you'd see direct results.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
From the OP's link:
Marcott's data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don't show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies.
Before this study, continuous temperature record reconstruction only went back about 2,000 years. The temperature trend produces a line shaped like a "hockey stick" with a sudden spike after what had been a fairly steady line. That data came from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments.
Sorry, but if one's proxies are accurate except for everywhere they can be verified, one's proxies are not accurate, period. The very most one can say and be consistent with the scientific method is that one's proxies are inline with other proxies. In fact, we know not only from historic measurements but also from the freezing point of water that the Earth has been significantly warmer during human civilization, most clearly in Europe and Greenland but also in the New World.

As to what we can do, we can shift money from subsidizing current green energy companies to basic research on green energy. We can't convince developing nations to use solar over coal at current price points, but with better and cheaper solar cells and LEDs they'll make that decision for themselves. We can shift subsidies away from oil and coal. And domestically, we can use tax policy to drive ourselves away from fossil fuels and toward green energy and conservation. Much as I dislike that on principle and Obama's war on coal in particular, it's the quickest way to have a significant impact. And regardless of what effect this may have on climate, we certainly can't make it worse by using less fossil fuel, and we can reduce the direct effects of excess CO2 on stressed marine and aquatic ecosystems.
 

Dendra

Junior Member
Feb 19, 2013
16
0
0
I suspect that the world's population will force us to sacrifice both lives and living standards as the "catastrophe" to get us to rethink immigration and reproductive rights.

The most likely catastrophe that will affect mankind is a significant, prolonged famine. There are already 7 billion humans, and they all want to eat. Climate change negatively will affect the crops necessary to feed them.