<Close, but no cigarThe Oil DrumNYT says peak oil "almost certainly correct">

36 comments on Wednesday Open Thread and News Dump

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

writerman on March 1, 2006 - 5:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Over here in Europe, if one keeps one's ear to the ground, it seems we're beginning to reivaluate our data on "global meltdown" prospects. The timescale is the next 100 years. I'll just paraphrase the hot gossip, if that's allowed on site like TOD? Basically, it would appear we've substantially underestimated the negative effects of the main greenhouse gasses on the environment and especially the polar regions. Our lastest measurements in Greenland ect. couplede with more sophisticated computer models, are showing rises in average temperatures way above in the 2 to 4 degree range we've been operating witn. Now we're dealing with possible rises in the 2 to 11 degrees range by the end of this century. Perhaps averaging out at around 6, that's about three times the current worst case as far as I can see. These numbers haven't been published yet, or received much publicity, but they soon will be. Clearly these figures are going to be Very controversial and subject to a Lot of debate, because, if true, they have dramatic consequences for our civilization, global meltdown rates, the gulfstream and sea levels. Sorry for the drama, and speed, and sorry for the lack of links and all the rest, but I've got lots of other stuff to write at the moment.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Don Sailorman on March 1, 2006 - 10:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Head for the hills! Alternatively, let us try to avoid the fallacy of lack of proportion:
  1. There is way more ice near the south pole than near the north pole. The volume of this southern ice seems not to be changing much. (Check recent articles in "Science.")
  2. The 800 pound gorilla that nobody wants to talk about on this website (I hope NOT due to political correctness) is clouds. As climate warms up, probably more clouds will form. As certain types of clouds increase, earth's albedo may increase considerably. If this increase in happens, then more sunlight would be reflected than is now the case. Result--global cooling tendency. Because nobody is even close to modeling what happens to cloud cover, nobody honest has any solid idea of what the net result will be.
  3. I make no assertions, no forecasts. I do say that fear sells, and the fearmongers know this. Personally, I keep a boat at hand and provisioned, just in case it rains for forty days and forty nights once again. BTW, there is some evidence that the many cultural "myths" of a great flood are based on a reality, and although the story of Noah is not literally true, it may be metaphorically true.
  4. The weight of the evidence suggests that we are in for a major change in climate in the near future (say 100 years). What exactly the nature of this change will be is impossible to say. I do agree with Stuart that in increase in the severity of storms is likely.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Essex Land Rover Man on March 1, 2006 - 10:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There was a BBC2 science program horizon called "Global Dimming". This dealt with dramatic reduction in sunlight and cooling over the past century. The fact that global temperatures have increased by 0.6C shows how powerful Global Dimming and Global Warming has been. Now pollution scrubbers are being installed in power stations, we will see what masking Global Dimming has done to Global Warming.

The link to the transcript is: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

For those that are interested in Global Warming, I would strongly urge to read the above link. It convinced me to take Global Warming seriously.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulusP on March 1, 2006 - 10:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don I agree. A few remarks:
  • South pole ice is breaking up. This may be a natural process which continuously occurs. However indications are the Antarctic ice sheet is not rebuilding by new precipation at the same speed.
  • It is a fact that we are very bad at predicting the weather  even on a daily timeframe. Let alone climate change in the short, medium, or medium-long term. There are just to many factors, like your clouds, involved. If somewhere in the world a large volcano explodes we may see temperatures drop by 0.5 C.-1.0 C. for a few years, just to name another factor.
  • Climate was, is , and always will be a dynamic system, never on equilibrium, but always bouncing around it from one end to the other.
  • Noting the above, PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME TO WHAT EXTEND SEALEVELS WILL RISE. I live in Holland you see......Ah, no one can tell me? D*mn!
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Don Sailorman on March 1, 2006 - 11:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What kind of boat do you have? How have you provisioned it? How many of your family members will it accommodate? How are your fishing skills?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Richard on March 2, 2006 - 3:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is a fact that we are very bad at predicting the weather  even on a daily timeframe. Let alone climate change in the short, medium, or medium-long term

I'm not sure if the quality of the day-to-day weather prediction has anything to do with Global Warming.

To quote a (Dutch) comedian from Almelo:

"Who cares that the sealevels rise a few cm in 100 years? It is changing 1 meter every 6 hours!"

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on March 1, 2006 - 10:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The 800 pound gorilla that nobody wants to talk about on this website (I hope NOT due to political correctness) is clouds. As climate warms up, probably more clouds ...

Don, this forum is one of the least concerned with political correctness of any I have run across. The architects of TOD have stuck to more-or-less verifiable facts to such a degree that I usually just lurk, having nothing substantive to add.

However, this thread covered the work of a NASA researcher which presents a pretty good measure of what we're in for. In particular, when discussing this diagram the group's consensus, I believe, is that we currently need a Krakatau or Pinatubo about every 5 years or so just to make up for the warming effect of GHGs. It was also generally agreed that there would probably be a significant NIMBY problem with using thermonuclear weapons to simulate this effect.

BTW, in a climate model the clouds have different effects depending on their altitude. Tropospheric clouds contribute to warming, while high stratospheric clouds tend to cool. It all depends on where the infrared gets scattered. So there ya go.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulusP on March 1, 2006 - 10:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Here you go: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1719606,00.html

"The three previous reports assumed that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase average global temperature by between 1.5 and 4.5C. Since then, computer models have foreseen increases as high as 11C...."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.