E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jessica Robertson / USGS
Sea ice is critical habitat for polar bears, which use it as a platform from which to hunt seals.
By John Roach, NBC News Digital
The global climate may already be changing faster than humans are prepared to adapt to, heralding a shift in the climate change debate from who to blame to how to cope, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum.
In turn, runaway climate change could spur an island nation doomed to drown under rising seas or a wealthy entrepreneur with do-good intentions to deliberately inject sunlight-reflecting particles high into the stratosphere in a bid to cool the planet.
“The global climate could, in effect, be hijacked by a rogue country or even a wealthy individual, with unpredictable costs to agriculture, infrastructure and global security,” the international organization writes in a special “X Factors” section of its annual risk assessment report released Tuesday.
The special section was developed in collaboration with the journal Nature to highlight the top five risks that could sneak up largely unnoticed with unknown consequences. Highlighting them now, the thinking goes, will provide a cushion of time to proactively prepare.
X factors, the report notes, "are serious issues and grounded in the latest scientific findings, but somewhat remote from what are generally seen as more immediate concerns such as failed states, extreme weather events, macroeconomic instability or armed conflict."
In addition to the climate spinning out of control and rogue geoengineers, other X factors identified in the report include:
- Ethical dilemmas over new drugs and devices that could make us smarter.
- Medical advances that could deliver a world overpopulated with “a mass of arthritic, demented, and, above all, expensive elderly who are in need of long term care and palliative solutions."
- The discovery of alien life, which could have profound societal impacts.
The specter of runaway climate change primarily lurks in so-called feedback loops that accelerate the pace of warming, such as melting ice sheets that expose darker land and water that absorb more of the sun’s energy, leading to more warming and ice melting.
Indeed, signs of these feedback are beginning to bubble to the surface in places such as the Arctic where summer sea ice could be gone between 2015 and 2050, and the potent greenhouse gas methane is being released from frozen deposits trapped in the seafloor.
On the geoengineering front, scientists are beginning to float proposals for small-scale experiments, though larger experiments to test solar radiation management has stalled out due to concerns about unintended consequences.
“This leaves a gap for unregulated experimentation by ‘rogue’ parties,” the World Economic Forum report says.
In July 2012, a California businessman dropped 100 tons of ore with traces of iron into the Pacific Ocean off Canada’s British Columbia, triggering a 3,800-square-mile algae bloom. The algae absorb carbon dioxide and sink to the ocean bottom, removing the carbon from the atmosphere.
“The individual hoped to net lucrative carbon credits, but his actions may have been in violation of two international agreements,” the X Factors section reads. “Observers are concerned that this may be a sign of what is to come.”
John Roach is a contributing writer for NBC News Digital. To learn more about him, check out his website.
Leave a Comment:
This has to be some of the dumbest material I have ever read in journalism. There are 0 facts with worries from old people to aliens causing climate change. Only the dumbest of the left could even buy into a small percentage of this drivel. This is worse than the mayan calendar trype.
This has nothing to do with the left. It is serious analysis of potential future problems that they agree may never happen. But it is nevertheless wise to consider them. Read the report before you pass judgment. The report was published in collaboration with the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet.
And the sky could fall. Better approve an Obama tax for that too.
You do realize that he won the election, didn't you?
Get over yourself those who ignore or fear science are doomed to be replaced on the evolutionary ladder. Regardless of right or left, it is anti-science mongering jerks like yourself who obstruct advancement for the rest of us. The science behind this is solid and now accepted in the scientific community. Only people like you who act through their lives based on gut intuition or listen to demagogues have a problem with it. Move over so the rest of us can get past you.
Why on earth would you think the left would believe this? It's totally dumb dumb dumb. And buddy, the left is not dumb. It's the right that is likely to fall for all that crap about the elderly. The right would like to just kill them all off or deny them health care until they die.
Global warming is real, but unfortunately, the proponents of it tend to go overboard with scare tactics and promoting the worst possible outcomes instead of the most likely consequences.
Something that is coming that will have a major impact on the world is population decline, when the birth rate drops in the third world countries as women become more educated. This will cause a lot of financial disruption and there will be a need to rethink the idea that a successful business is one that is growing.
This point was added to the article by William Shatner I would think, lol!
There's nothing in the article that says old people and aliens are causing climate change.
Doomed will be in your faces soon
yeah, you don't believe scientific evidence, but you believe "the bible", a mythology compiled by barbaric peoples of 2000 years ago to explain their mysterious world.
Don't worry, Russell Coleman. We'll make sure that your name is carved on the monument to Trolls and Ostriches. People who are only capable of associating things with one political viewpoint or the other are on their way out. The rest of us are part of the fastest growing group in the US, independents!! Those who actually think and act independently, instead of spouting off the old party line.
If you don't want to even consider the consequences of climate change, don't worry, there are plenty of other rational, independent thinkers that do!
There really isn't anything that we in the USA can do to improve the climate until countries such as China, India and Brazil decide to clean up their act and stop polluting so much. These 3 growing countries represent over a third of the earths population and much of the CO2 being expelled into the atmosphere. Until they get on the ball nothing the USA and Europe can do will help.
X factors, the report notes, "are serious issues and grounded in the latest scientific findings, but somewhat remote from what are generally seen as more immediate concerns such as failed states, extreme weather events, macroeconomic instability or armed conflict."
In July 2012, a California businessman dropped 100 tons of ore with traces of iron into the Pacific Ocean off Canada’s British Columbia, triggering a 3,800-square-mile algae bloom. The algae absorb carbon dioxide and sink to the ocean bottom, removing the carbon from the atmosphere.
And YES, that happened last year... and it's for real. About the geriatics and aliens, it's remote but possible knowing the news about new/other Earths out there.
AC-1105116, actually I wish someone did the things the article talks about. I consider them all to be good things or good experiments - not bad. The word "rogue" here is undeserved, for the acts are all logical.
Don't you get it? Anything done by anyone but the govt. is rogue. If someone fixes the so-called "man-made" climate change what leg does the govt have to stand on to impose "climate change" regulations on us? None. It is all about control.
The the results of iron experiment cure has been scientifically proven to be worse than the warming. This is well documented in Oceanography textbooks and papers.
cheaphorde, could you step to the right? The light reflecting off of your tin hat is blinding me.
Whoa! That is hitting below the belt.
These guys must have finally taken a break from the lab and watched an Austin Powers movie.
BEWARE OF DR. EVIL'S "LASER". Muwhahahaha.
Geesh, must we constantly hear about the impending global devastation that WON'T happen in our lifetime. If it does, let it be a surprise; I like surprises.
If climate change doesn't get us, nuclear war probably will.
We have already used up half of all the known oil reserves in the world.
We have less than 150 years of oil left at the present rate of consumption but consumption is increasing rapidly as China and India become more industrialized.
Without petroleum we cannot run the huge farm machines that enabled us to grow so much food that the world population has bloomed from 1 billion before the Industrial Revolution to 6 billion now.
We depend on petroleum not only for fuel for the farm machinery and transportation of the food -- we use insecticides and fertilizers that use petroleum products also.
So mankind is facing a huge die off from starvation as the oil runs out and we can't produce the massive amounts of food anymore.
That will lead to nuclear war(s) as nations fight over the last oil fields and over grain.
Unless mankind moves off of planet Earth and / or finds other energy sources than petroleum, your grandkids will not be happy campers.
We need satellites in geo-synchronous orbits beaming reflected light down to earth in the infra red region to create huge power plants in the deserts to produce massive amounts of electricity. Using infra red light will not heat the atmosphere as using beams of sunlight would. The beams would be directed to hit boilers to make steam to run turbines. They would work night and day if the satellites were positioned in high enough orbits.
This is pretty much the basis for the anti-GW crowd too. Rogue greenies pass policies that trash the economy so that we cant afford to adapt once GW REALLY becomes intolerable.
There's just a little more to it than that, cheap.
Scientists move cautiously, and work hard to understand the unintended consequences of their actions. Who knows what will happen if some well-intentioned (but unaware) person decides to inject sunlight-reflecting sulfur particles into our stratosphere? How will it affect cloud formation? Rainfall patterns?
Aerosols could deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may affect visibility in the same way as large volcanic eruptions can. And a whole host of other things.
I wrote about this more than a year ago now.
Bad Science
Humans have a long history of geoengineering attempts- and we really aren't very good at it. Not very good at all.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/kevin-drum-lead-and-crime-melissa-harris-perry-msnbc
Good Lord people...we need to start listening to our scientists and tell the bought and paid for politicians and corporate owned mass media to SHUT THE @!$%# UP! It's time to start considering the facts, honesty and the truth and stop promoting what we can only wish is true and what we would like to believe.
It is time to take action and protect the next seven generations of Americans that follow ours. This will require great sacrifice on all of our parts with great dedication and determination. Or we can continue on the current course and become the apex of human civilization and be responsible for permanent degradation of the entire Planet for centuries to come, and forever be remembered as the most stupid, selfish and sociopathic generations of all time.
Hoka Hey! Idle No More for the life of our Mother Earth
Instead of blaming the people and cars for global warming, why not point the finger at the real culprits. government that seeds clouds and uses weather as a means of war.
Here is a reality based video that is worth viewing;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u_0JZRIHFtk
@Sierra-436323, just how is ocean iron fertilization so bad? It is a carbon sink...
The original idea of Ocean iron fertilization was to use this method to try to increase the salmon local population by a seudo-scientist which, by the same token, sold the idea to the local first nations elders.
This same id!ot didn't check environmental rules neither understood marine biology and just went ahead and dumped a few tons of iron ore close in the Georgia strait in BC Canada.
That's a good question, AB. Let me list just a few of the concerns scientists have about ocean iron fertilization:
1. Fertilization will stimulate blooms of algae that produce dimethylsulfide (DMS). DMS is the principal
natural source of sulfur for our atmosphere, and strongly influences cloud formation. At this time, we have no way of knowing how this will affect clouds, rainfall patterns, and general weather patterns around the globe.
2. However, we do already know that after a fertilization, the surface waters in that area are depleted of nutrients. Such a depletion will cause die-offs or mass migrations of fish and other marine populations. How will this affect their numbers? That we don't know.
3. Fertilization is a deliberate attempt to manipulate phytoplankton populations. Phytoplankton form the very base of the ocean's food chain. And (even small) unforeseen consequences could rapidly spiral out of control as the work their way up that food chain.
That's just off the top of my head. The bottom line is that iron fertilization is a very risky bet - an uncontrolled exeriment conducted on our only home. I am very unwilling to take that bet. Are you?
@Physicist-retired, thanks for the reply, but as I see it, none of these side effects are a concern at all, considering that volcanoes deposit extremely large amounts of iron over an extremely large area, leading to only positive effects. Manual fertilization is more targeted than that, if anything. You guys just want to sit back and not even experiment, while the world goes to hell. We're already playing a losing bet with the planet.
Much to the contrary, AB, we want to make sure that we aren't creating more problems with an ill-thought 'solution' before we proceed.
It's much like clinical trials with drugs. Surely you wouldn't want to take drugs that haven't been proven to be safe and effective. And even exhaustive clinical trials don't always screen out all negative side effects (remember Vioxx?).
This is our only planet. A cautious approach is more than warranted.
Meanwhile, no one is 'sitting back' while the world goes to hell. Small-scale experiments on ocean fertilization and atmospheric sulfur injections are already underway - many of them, in fact.
Of course, these approaches will only treat the symptoms of excess CO2 - the longterm solution lies in non-carbon energy sources.
Laffy Taffy, that article is full of false and unsupported claims. HAARP has no ability to affect the weather, and there is no evidence of a currently-ongoing SRM program as described in "chemtrails" claims.
but belfrey, it sounds so cool that "evil scientists" are destroying the weather in some kind of magical world domination scheme
just the thing to attract the gullible and lacking in critical thinking skils.
x as in unknown to them.....
Climate changing faster than people can adapt to? I wonder how a relative of mine was able to move from the Pacific NW to the Arizona desert. Big climate change. Odd how he was able to adapt.
I've also noticed that I somehow manage to survive in the winter, even though it's much chillier than summer. Very mysterious....
When you don't understand the most basic things, pretty much everything is mysterious.
Ya, like.. how can climate be hijacked? What, is someone going to pull a gun and say, "Take this climate to Cuba, right now!"
...or just maybe they could help you locate your brain.
When you don’t understand sarcasm, parody and other forms of humor, pretty much everything seems depressing.
Voice -
This a poor forum for irony. So few have a sense of humor. If you don't flag it as sarcasm, they just don't get it.
Does it say the climate may be hijacked by people developing pills to make people smarter ? Then a picture of a bear on ice. Going for more coffee now.............
People the problem is that if sea levels rise San Francisco cant move to Utah fast enough. If you don't get the difficulty in moving the entire population of the US coastline then... *sigh*
Even though we have 4 seasons in the northern states (Yay!), winter is nothing like it was even 20 years ago. We haven't had the -50, -40, or even -30 degrees from 20 years ago. To some that doesn't seem like a problem but we need those severe cold periods up here to kill off the insects that destroy trees (a major resource of ours). What would happen is the northern states would have nothing but dead, dry trees everywhere and all it would take is 1 lightning strike to destroy our entire ecosystem up here. With the drought conditions from last year, and the warmer temps, this is a very real possibility.
""are serious issues and grounded in the latest scientific findings, but somewhat remote from what are generally seen as more immediate concerns such as failed states, extreme weather events, macroeconomic instability or armed conflict."
That's why many people believe you should be learning to grow your own food and arming yourself. I myself have gotten past the "who's fault" bit and moved on to "what will I need" and "where on the planet will life still be sustainable" and "how do I prepare while still enjoying the easy life we have now."
We will look back on these times as "when times were easy", so enjoy them! On the other hand, that should be balanced with preparing for the future. How long does the science community figure we have before there are multiple years of major crop failures, weather events decimating cities, flooding? Five years? Ten years?
The question isn't so much "how to adapt," it's more like "where the @!$%# are we going to grow crops when we can't predict annual rainfalls anymore?"
Janstince - True. Water is a problem whether for crops or turning off the spigot for Los Angeles and other cities, and growing crops to feed too many animals for meat instead of people.
4.9, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12. While what you write is true, Boeing and Airbus are building planes like crazy so people can fly all over the globe for a holiday or to go visit the home folks after they "emigrate" to a new country. In the US we have 50million travelling on every major holiday period. We have 100,000's of thousands travelling every weekend just to see their home team play "away" games. We have 4,000 to 12,000 sq ft homes with pools and jacquizes powered up 24/7, heated and cooled garages. 24 ft tall atrium's heated and cooled - on the grid powered by coal. 9 billion people soon on the planet. Everyone is killing trees as fast as they can build chainsaws. We are filling the air with carbon. Scientists say if you stop it today, the climate will continue warming for decades caused by the carbon already in the air. But just a couple years ago we have half the congress denying warming. Now the same idiots are in charge of inventing policy to deal with it. Look what has happened to Australia. We are in big trouble.
@Janstince: You possibly will not be able to grow crops in your current location. I've been trying to find maps projecting where the climate will still be livable, but have not found anything. The only thing I can find is a map projecting the outcome of rising sea levels. That's useful to know if you will be underwater, but not useful to know if you will be living on an frozen tundra or in a desert.
@IReadyou: It sounds like you are reaching the acceptance phase. Politics (local, global, etc) are not going to fix this. Nothing will fix this. Now the game is figuring out how to build a new civilization so our species can continue.
pineapple plantations in Ontario perhaps.
The people that believe global warming is a fiction of the liberal left are the same people that believed Romney would win in 2012. Beyond that they believe that the same strategies that did not serve them well will serve them better in 2016. For that I am grateful.
Not really. Many open minded liberals have wondered why the earths temperature has been stable for the last 16 years and yet every weather phenomena is due to global warming? Having an open mind, I am questioning the validity of the assumption that humans are the major cause of the warming.
Maybe these "open minded liberals" need to read the news and spend less time listening to Fox News? The earth's temperature has not been stable. It has been rising consistently; most years, the average global temperature is slightly higher than the previous years. When this starts adding up, you get superstorms like Sandy and the like.
RealityCheckAgain, in fact the temperature has been steadily rising over the time period you mentioned. Just look at the data. The numbers don't lie. 2012 was the warmest year ever for the USA. It's obvious that you're a programmed denier.
Accurate thermometers were not developed until 19 May 1743, the design of a mercury thermometer, the "Thermometer of Lyon" built by the craftsman Pierre Casati that used the celsius temperature scale.[7][8][9]
EVERYTHING prior to this is a SWAG or speculation because some other measurable data that coensides with temperature...
Michael Mann formally of UVA (fired) and his 'Hocky Stick temperature graph', was based on Oak tree ringsin the UK. Ignoring the TWO other main factors that also influence these (water & nutrition) and the scientist that did the original study... see 's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
If you use the ice core temperature data:
1. Oct. 2, 1998 — An analysis of an ancient Antarctic ice core indicates an abrupt climate warming occurred there about 12,500 years ago, this also coresponds with data from the Arctic/Greenland... see
2. The warmest period was during the last interglacial period, which is an interval of warmer global average temperature that separates ice ages. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today... see
3. The Earths temperature averages have been DECREASING for the last 12+thousand years... see
Here are the references that NBC is blocking. Just add - www.
Michael Mann - .global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
1. ref - .sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981002082033.htm
2. ref - news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
3. ref - das.uwyo.edu/geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/iccore.html & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Temperatures "relatively stable" ok, so you believe what you believe despite the facts. The U.S. had the highest ever recorded temperature breaking the 1989 record by more than a degree. 12 States set all time records as well. If we can't even agree on the facts, how in the world are we ever going to find a solution to the problem? For the past 11 years we have gone to the same tree farm to cut our Christmas tree, we take a picture in the same spot next to a creek. Its interesting to look at them all together and see the first ones with us standing on the ice and the latest ones with just small patches of snow. Sure weather "cycles", but 10 or more straight years of increase is not a "cycle" its a trend. To deny it, no matter what the cause, is just plain stupid.
Reality, the talking point that the climate has been cooling for 16 years is a lie being spread by conservative know nothings. The source of it is an opinion piece written by a guy named David Rose who claimed that data from the MET Office (UK's weather service) showed that temperatures have been declining since 1997, which was the last really strong El Nino year. The MET Office issued a news release, which is still on their website, disavowing the statement by Mr. Rose. This is all public information for anyone who is not willing to have their head stuffed with nonsence from talk radio and right wing blogs. The fact is that 8 of the 10 warmest years on record have happend in the last 15 years. If you look at a graph, the trend is obvious to anyone whose mind has not been hijacked by the fossil fuel industry.
Byron Raum
Maybe these "open minded liberals" need to read the news and spend less time listening to Fox News? The earth's temperature has not been stable. It has been rising consistently; most years, the average global temperature is slightly higher than the previous years. When this starts adding up, you get superstorms like Sandy and the like.
SANDY WAS NOT A SUPERSTORM - it was a Category 1 Hurricane that exposed the crappy building codes and proved how ill prepared the north east is when facing such storms. So someone determined that they needed to categorize this storm into something more than it was. The Earth's climate is complex and you cannot accurately state with out a doubt that the current temperature pattern is normal or abnormal because we've only been recording temperatures for over 250 or so years consistently. Which is why people need to keep an open mind and question everything.
Byron Raum,
I find it hard to believe that you have an open mind.
NASA had the education and equipment needed to record and study the Climate for decades. Yet, you don't believe them??? Have you studied climate, and what equipment have you used to study it??? What is your educational background that gives you the right to say they are wrong???
RKL and Byron,
FROM NASA WEBSITE:
Comparing the Winds of Sandy and Katrina
The scenes of devastation and wreckage that Hurricanes Sandy
(2012) and Katrina (2005) left behind were tragically similar. Both storms flooded
major cities, cut electric power to millions, and tore apart densely populated
coastlines. But from a meteorological perspective, the storms were very
different.
Katrina was a textbook tropical cyclone, with a compact,
symmetrical wind field that whipped around a circular low-pressure center. Like
most tropical cyclones, Katrina was a warm-core storm that drew its energy from
the warm waters of the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Sandy had similar
characteristics while it was blowing through the tropics. But as the storm
moved northward, it merged with a weather system arriving from the west and
started transitioning into an extra-tropical cyclone.
The names sound similar, but there are fundamental
differences between the two types of storms. While tropical cyclones draw their
energy from warm ocean waters, extra-tropical cyclones are fueled by sharp
temperature contrasts between masses of warm and cool air. Extra-tropical
cyclones also tend to be asymmetric, with broad wind and cloud fields shaped
more like commas than circles. So when tropical cyclones become extra-tropical,
their wind and cloud fields expand dramatically. Their strongest winds
generally weaken during this process, but occasionally a transitioning storm
retains hurricane force winds, as was the case with Sandy.
A pair of wind maps illustrated some of the differences. A
map of Sandy’s winds produced with data from a radar scatterometer on the
Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2, showed the strength and
direction of Sandy’s ocean surface winds on October 28, 2012. A map of
Hurricane Katrina’s winds was made from similar data acquired on August 28,
2005, by a radar scatterometer on NASA’s retired QuickSCAT satellite.
The map of Sandy’s winds produced with data from a radar
scatterometer on the Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2,
shows the strength and direction of Sandy’s ocean surface winds on October 28,
2012. Wind speeds above 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour are yellow; above 80 kph
(50 mph) are orange; and above 95 kph (60 mph) are dark red.
The map of Hurricane Katrina’s winds was made from similar
data acquired on August 28, 2005, by a radar scatterometer on NASA’s retired
QuickSCAT satellite. Wind speeds above 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour are
yellow; above 80 kph (50 mph) are orange; and above 95 kph (60 mph) are dark
red.
wind fields. For Katrina, winds over 65 kilometers per hour stretched about 500
kilometers (300 miles) from edge to edge. For Sandy, winds of that intensity
stretched 1,500 kilometers (900 miles). “Katrina’s winds were more intense, but
they covered less area,” said Brian McNoldy, a University of Miami
meteorologist who authored a Washington Post article explaining why Sandy’s
storm surge caused so much damage. “When that boils down to storm surge, Katrina
was capable of generating a locally higher surge, but Sandy was capable of
generating a destructive surge over a larger length of coastline.”
Another difference is the location of the strongest winds.
For tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere, the strongest winds are
usually just east of the eye amidst a ring of violent thunderstorms called the
eyewall. “The windfield of Katrina fits this pattern, but for Sandy the weakest
winds are to the east—a hint that Sandy has already begun interacting with a
system to its northeast and a blocking high to its northeast,” noted Penn State
meteorologist Jenni Evans, State College, Penn.
I'm sure if both of you studied Vector Analysis or Physic in College you would know it is not just the force but force across area that does damage.
In short don't have a plumber clear clogged arteries. Get the doctor he has the training and education to do it properly.
So glad you learned how to cut and paste in college - I was merely stating that despite all the technology and records we have to date is only small amount of data compared to the eons of earth's climate history. I have no doubt that we have had some impact and will see odd shifts. Now as far as the Sandy/Katrina issue I've been through a number of hurricanes and tropical storms in a home that was build in 1909 on an island whose highest peak is only 16 feet above sea level - it has survived albeit with minor damage including storm surge but it has seen the worst and survived because we knew how to build homes to stand up to forces unlike today.
So I speak from experience when I tell you that had the building codes been up to snuff as they are in the south east along the coast - you wouldn't have seen the level or area of devastation that you did after Sandy - just like Miami and Dade County experienced in Andrew building codes needed to be more stringent. But in this day and age no one want to blame it on themselves, we need buzzy and catchy phrases to subtract our stupidity form the equation, especially if they look great in the paper or on a twitter feed, which is an entirely different subject for an entirely different day.
Now to address your backhanded comments - What educational back ground gives us the "right" to question to say they're wrong - Last time I checked there was no educational requirement to question anyone's data - which I wasn't in the first place. As to what I studies in college is none of your concern just know that I graduated with a decent gpa from flagship university of my state.
corrections: Studied* and from _the— flagship university of my state.
now to get back to work. And hope Dr. Evil isn't out there plotting to hijack my cool weather - which isn't doing me any good as i'm trapped in the office today.
RKL 32159:
My background is electrical engineering and last time I checked in order to prove someone is wrong you have to show they are wrong with correct data for the time in question and all variables included. It is required in science to look at the relationship of these variables to come up with a conclusion. NASA has always been conservative. This should have been learned in your first Physic lab.
You don't have that. Damage is a function of area, force and time. I take offense when individuals do not give credit to the hard work, time and dedication these scientist have put in. If you want to say they are inaccurate handle it with recorded data gathered for the period in question all varibles included.
If you don't like the report from NASA don't read it. However, it doesn't look like you have an open mind.
Buddy whether you feel I have an open mind is completely your opinion - I did not say that I didn't "believe" the data I mere questioned the fact that we have a limited amount of data to rely on and that time will tell (as it always does) whether humans have impacted the climate - which for your information I emphatically do agree with.
Yes, we know the last ice age ended fairly abruptly at about that time. What many people don't realize is that release of CO2 as the oceans warmed played a major "feedback" role in the warming process. The laws of physics haven't changed. Higher atmospheric greenhouse gas levels will cause warming regardless of how the gases got into the atmosphere. What happened in the past supports a significant "climate sensitivity" to CO2.
No doubt in the proper minds.
windsor-detroit-film.blogspot(dot)ca/2012/12/doubt-glaciers-are-retreating-check.html
yep.
A bit terse, but evocative . . .
As informed environmental scientists know, overpopulation combined with advanced technology are the problems. But it is difficult for politicians to fight "big oil" and the religions who want more babies born, such as: the Catholics, Mormons and Muslims. It seems to me to be wise to read more deeply into the problems and recognize that we have probably gone past the point of no return. I suggest reading World Overpopulation Awareness (overpopulation.org) and Book 1 of the free e-book series "And Gulliver Returns' (andgulliverreturns.info). But as our human history clearly shows we are more likely to have faith that good things will happen and hope that they will happen to us. Expert predictions estimate that if all people in the world are going to live at the level that we have in the West, 1 1/2 billion people is all that we can support. But we are over 7 billion.
As the average US Citizen has discovered...
Their FREE TRADE and World economy has resulted in a FAILING 'Life Style' not the rosy illusion of raising the poor people to their US levels...
During the 1950/60's one semi-skilled worker could build the American dream. Now with almost EVERYONE working in a family, the dream is just that, a DREAM...
Yesterday it was reported that the people of Italy are reverting to wood fires to cook their meals. Electricity & Gas are now too expensive for their average person. In Thailand the Thai Gov pays 25% of the cost of NG for cooking, so the average person will not cut-down their trees & pollute their atomosphere. BTY - It is working in Thailand...
This is how the World can support 7+Billion people - LOWER Life Styles...
It's time to rekindle interest in the greatest invention in the history of man which liberated more men and women than any other: the guillotine.
AC, the Economist notes that the price of solar panels below $1 / watt and still declining. We are not limited by lack of ingenuity. Humanity's progress is limited by belief in things that aren't so, greed, ignorance, and arrogance, manifested through politics.
So you need ~1000 sq ft to keep your fridge working. Just joking. Solar panels ARE the best way for individual power requirements but it has been several generations in the works to get the price down to the outrageous cost it is now. The government will have to provide the panels and power storage to individuals some day or the street scene in "Blade Runner" will be the new norm.
The current tracking solar panels are around 25% efficient, fixed panels are LOWER. Their service life is around 25+years. The electronics and batteries needed to enable these panels to function, have a much SHORTER service life. Now lets talk about the POLLUTION caused by these being manufactured and later recycled...
BTY - When you start covering land that can be cultivated for food, sugars, etc. You are LOSING/WASTING the Suns ENERGY...
Solar power is great for remote locations, that can use intermittent power. But for the regular user, the panels have to be backed-up with a stable power source. The only economic gain is seen by the installers, maintainers and the people collecting the TAX Subsidies...
Ever installed and used solar power??? I HAVE @ a remote Farming Camp and had to replace the controller TWICE in 6+months. We were just powering; a flat screen TV, computer/printer, and LED lights with 5-panels and a Prius Li battery. Everything else with a motor needed a diesel generator...
25% efficiency is actually better than the overall efficiency with which plants convert sunlight into useable food. The amount of land needed for "solar farms" will be much less than the land used for agriculture, and most of those solar farms will be located in areas that are currently deserts. Yes, there are still issues to resolve, but you are way too pessimistic about solar power.
Climate could be hijacked? Better get Homeland Security on it.
We better outlaw the assault weapons that the climate hijackers might use!
what has been hijacked is meaningful policy... there is none... there will be none
Duh, like "Climate Change" hasn't already been hijacked by every lefty/progressive/liberal organization out there? It's turned into their religion.
Sorry, it's the Conservatives that have hijacked "Climate Change." They won't allow any advance on mitigating technology because they think air conditioned homes and malls prove it's all manageable.
Not any sort of religion, doug, just listening to those who are educated in such matters and, quite frankly, personal observation of local weather. It may be too late to even attempt to rectify the speed of climate change because for far too long we have had people like yourself who cover their eyes and ears and loudly say la,la,la,la whenever climate change is discussed.
It is a stupid position that you and your ilk take and have taken. This liberal boomer blames politicians who think like you; but since they are some of the same who only believe the world is 6,000 years old and that a woman's body shuts down when raped and therefore can't become pregnant, there can be no expectations of having an intelligent conversation on what can be done.
If only someone could find a cure for stupid, maybe actions could be taken to mitigate the problems we are/will be facing very, very soon with regard to Global Warming/climate change.
Problem with "...educated in such matters...": none have a clue how to model a planet's weather system without inputting a bias to create an outcome already pre-dispositioned by the prejudices of the creator(s). All too often the IPCC's chants of doom and gloom have been turned on their heads by new evidence. In other words, the "creators" want to find a human-caused change to the planet's climate and create the models to reinforce that prejudice. After all, humans MUST be responsible for all actions in the universe, right? If the Sun were to blow up today, there would be those among the anthropocentric climate change community who would claim it was humans at the root cause...
Only now is NASA finally admitting that using the Sun's input as a constant effect on the planet's climate may not be the smartest thing to do (8 Jan news release from NASA). This, after many scientists who have tried to get the climate change community to acknowledge this, have been laughed and booed out of various meetings, had papers rejected, been alienated, and had funding requests ignored because they didn't chant the proper words of the new religion.
Unfortunately, the climate change proponents have created a new religion, one based largely in feelings of guilt that there are divisions in the world between haves and have-nots. This is their cathartic release from that guilt, find a way to punish the rich and use the cover of a pseudo-science as their justification.
Thanks Doug for being a voice of reason this morning. Here's some more. The modern era for climate monitoring started in 1960s. Data that is driving these unfounded statements only goes back 52 years. The rest is data from ground based stations randomly placed where humans lived. Notice how the words ever and never are used. The claims 'smallest of Greenland ice ever' is just one many that are just not true. The proof to this is reading ancient books on how wonderful the wine was from a region that is now iced over.
WT? Doug and Sierra - there is no "reason" in your statements. With almost every single climate scientist (people with real degrees and experience) saying that the data points to huge changes in our climates future, how can you dispute that? By just saying "it's not true" make it not true? What a rube!
The ONLY people that deny severe climate change are the paid lackey's of big oil and coal. If someone paid you $500k per year, would you spout nonsense and outright lies?
Frisby -
"rubes?" "paid lackey's (sic)?"
That's the besty you can do?
How about "heretics?"
Absolutely no reason, Frisby. And this feeling of guilt that you espouse, Doug, as far as I'm concerned is non-existent. I just hate to see droughts, major snow (yes snow) storms, hurricanes and yet other records being broken here in NC in the summer - and - in the winter. We were very near 70 yesterday in January, and I think that was a record also. The last real snow we had was in 2000 and it was over 20 inches - another record.
Unlike you and Sierra (are both of you climate scientists btw), I listen to the overwhelming majority of these scientists who say we're in trouble. Now, there are scientists who have different opinions, but if you investigate them, you find out they get their funding through oil companies and far-right-wing think (what a misnomer) tanks.
So, I'm supposing that if the majority of scientists are correct, then whatever comes, won't just affect liberals like myself; it's going to affect you too. So, keep burying your heads in the sand; and if things continue like they are now, your heads will be very scorched.
Boomer -
And the maority of the scientists you are listening to are being funded through the IPCC - which is funded by the UN. No agena there, certainly.
I've lived in central NC for decades. A run of 70-degree days in January is not new - it is one of the reasons I live here. We are ony a few weeks away from the earliest blooming trees - I welcome that.
That just isn't true, unless you consider the "bias" to be the basic laws of physics (backup up by experimental data) that cause greenhouse gases to absorb thermal radiation that would otherwise escape to space. Global warming since at least the 1970s can be confirmed by direct measurements, including measurements of ocean heat far away from any ground stations near where people live.
This article could only be written by an English major or a lawyer who has absolute no idea about critical thinking nor the ability to analyze the data. What a crock!!!
Really?...and what's your expertise in Climate Science?
Normal situation you would assess risk, limit cost and go with most likely over best case / worst case scenario.
None of that is happening, and the future costs will be astronomical.
There is no reason to not approach climate issues like a project. But right now, no one cares.
Thanks for the good laugh this morning. This is a joke article plain and simple. We have 800,000 years of climate data showing drastic and swift changes happened. Yet, some people think this is all brand spanking new; never, ever happening before. The climate is supposed to change and species are supposed to die off. The folks who are demanding a Goldilocks planet were nothing changes are the ones who will kill the planet.
“The global climate could, in effect, be hijacked by a rogue country or even a wealthy individual
And if you want me not to hijack the climate, I want one meeellion dollars.
that isn't how I said it, but they stole a million dollars from me instead, and so I continue to hijack the climate with dragon of course!
FLOTSAM.
While the physical observations maybe true, can the author prove they have never happened before in the past two millions years? If not, how can his points be valid proof of climate change? Why not climate chaos (the pattern of the universe)? Chaos runs the universe and the earth.
This worn out, disproved climate theory deserves no further elucidation in lame stream media. The planet's surface has been warming since humans lived in caves--part of the ebb and flow of earth. More broadly taken, the planet as whole is cooling from previous volcanic eras.
You won't see any of the these loose nut, pseudo-scientists addressing the whole truth. All they have are buzz words and B.S. AND, carbon credits they'd like to sell you. Resist stupidity.
P.T. Barnum was correct.
and you're an obvious candidate...
While weather events may be chaotic, the total heat content of the world's oceans and atmosphere is not ... instead, it responds directly to "forcing" such as changes in solar radiation or the thermal radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases. The evidence regarding climate changes dating back millions of years strongly supports the important role of greenhouse gases. (As I mentioned in another post, natural release of CO2 from the oceans plays a major role when ice ages end.)
Although I'm not an advocate of the climate change therory. But consider this....
The world's population is growing drastically each year. In order to feed this growing population, there is a growing demand on crop production. With a warmer climate, the growing season lengthens. More crops can be produced. Climate change might be good.
But seriously, what's wrong with wanting to address some of the critical issues that we face in the future or at the very least opening a discussion? Even the CEO of Exxon has mention in company statements that climate change is real, albeit an "engineering problem". Sure, we'll adapt, but what if the Midwest goes through a desertification process? Do you think that losing that food producing region will not have an impact?
I don't think that we can hide from that fact. Do you?
Well, maybe the Canadians and Icelanders will become the new "breadbasket" farmers.
Personally, I am hopeful the dialogue of the "experts" will continue to change to adaptation rather than to the redistrubution of wealth. I have never understood how bankrupting the developed nations will modify the climate.
But if it can be hijacked, I guess the climate can be legislated into compliance.
mpa, that's the key to the "denials." GW isnt seen as bad to everybody. Those who will be hurt need to have enough wealth on hand to adapt when it gets intolerable FOR THEM. Others are going to love the warmer weather, higher CO2 and shifting microclimates. People who are on the wrong end of the status quo don't want to preserve it.
"The discovery of alien life, which could have profound societal impacts."
Sheesh. We are spending money on reports such as this? If Roach was forced to publish this clap-trap he ought to be pitied. If Roach chose to publish this he ought to be pilloried.
I really doubt that if a Mars rover discovers some single-celled organisms most people are going care, let alone turn it into some "X Factor" that changes climate on earth. And if some space-travelling race from across the galaxy shows up in orbit, we are probably going to have far bigger problems than climate change (hint - think what happened to indigenous New World peoples when the conquistadors showed up).
Drugs and devices that make people smarter? LOL. At the rate we are going, those better be some pretty powerful drugs and devices.
I'm not sure what is more laughable: a group writing a report like this and taking themselves seriously, or a reporter writing about junk such as this.
Somebody like Mr. Burns?
This sounds like the plot for the next Austin Powers movie.
LMAO
Every major country in the world has been attempting to do something about the weather for over a century, with absolutely no results. Nobody can 'hijack' the climate. It is physically impossible, because the climate will do whatever it needs to to compensate. Sounds like they had too much tequila at the Scientology meeting last night.
Wow, the climate has free will? That's an "interesting" theory.
It's difficult, but not physically impossible. In effect, we've already "hijacked" the climate, but it took decades of emissions from burning fuels (and other smaller sources) to do it.
Unbelievable, I cannot comprehend why people want to turn this into a political argument. The truth is staring you in the face, that great FL condo you have on the beach will be the foundation of a new coral reef in 50 years, NE snow skiing areas will become spas in winter and NYC will be the new Venice, Wall Street will become Wall Canal.
These same people place their faith in a book of myths, not even original myths. Most passages are borrowed from other cultures, most "Christan" holidays are hijacked barbarian rites that the "Church" used to "convert and control those barbarians. You have no further to look than central and south America where the majority of the population is still native. The mix of "Christian" and native practices would shock the "Born Again's". Example, Easter: First Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Spring solstice. Perfect time to start planting, a new begining in life cycles. Christmas Tree: Barbarian Franks Winter solstice pratice in tribute to their gods. The 3 KINGS: Another myth stolen from the Tigris–Euphrates cultures. The Old Testament has so may borrowed myths like Noah, Garden of Eden, burning bushes that it reeks of plagiarism.
The real point behind these writings is to provide a belief system to allow the few to control the masses.
"Unbelievable. I cannot comprehend why peope want to turn this into a political argument."
"Those same people place their faith in a book of myths, not even original myths."
Pretty funny.
And the ancient Mayan dragon is Quetzalcoatl.
Aztec.
Mesoamerican dragon from before 500 b.c., still there with Aztec 1400 - 1600 a.d.
The average ocean temperature has been determined by these "scientists" to be 45/1000 of a degree Fahrenheidt higher than it was in 1952. Fifty years ago. At that rate, it will take 2,222 years for the the temperature to be one degree higher than it is now. Surely we'll be able to adapt.
As long as idiotic policies dont trash our economy and make us too poor to adapt when needed.
If you average it down the deepest depths currently measured, it might only average out to 0.1 to 0.2 deg so far, but the surface warming is much greater (comparable to the atmospheric warming which is approaching 1 deg C), and it's the surface temperature that influences weather patterns such as patterns of precipitation and drought.