Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 291

Thread: global warming

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798

    global warming

    I recall some global warming predictions being made in 1979 but don't recall the exact predictions. Does anyone know where these predictions are?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I recall some global warming predictions being made in 1979 but don't recall the exact predictions. Does anyone know where these predictions are?
    Can't you be a little more specific? I'd start by scanning the New York Times.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,803
    Predictions by who?

    Realistically, the general public would have had textbooks from the 1950's and 1960's and would have operating on the assumption that another ice age was just around the corner.

    1979 is an odd year... technology and communication were slower and less than prime for modeling and consensus building.
    Solfe

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    Can't you be a little more specific? I'd start by scanning the New York Times.
    I thought I remembered 2-3 degrees centigrade by the end of the 20th century. I have searched the internet, but can't find a graph of global warming prediction estimates going that far back. I also do remember the global cooling predictions before that.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    628
    If you're sure it was 1979 then the paper was probably the Charney Report you an find the complete set of documents here:

    The report:
    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html


    The resources:

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/downloads.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
    If you're sure it was 1979 then the paper was probably the Charney Report you an find the complete set of documents here:

    The report:
    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html



    The resources:

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/downloads.html
    The Charney report seems accurate. I would have been in an environmental class in high school at that time. So its timing seems appropriate and the numbers close to what I recall. It looks like they were calling for a doubling of CO2 by 2030 and a 1.5 - 3.5 degree C temp rise with doubling of CO2. Not too bad of an estimate for 1979. I, however, living in northern United States, would welcome some global warming in the winter.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I, however, living in northern United States, would welcome some global warming in the winter.
    I suspect you are making a little winky joke there, but I recall some regional models that actually predict that global warming will lead to more extreme seasonal weather in the Midwest US. In other words, colder winters and hotter summers, with a yearly average that is higher than historic values. I don't know if such models are still current, but a global increase in temperature of x degrees doesn't mean every location is just x degrees warmer all the time.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    10,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I suspect you are making a little winky joke there, but I recall some regional models that actually predict that global warming will lead to more extreme seasonal weather in the Midwest US. In other words, colder winters and hotter summers, with a yearly average that is higher than historic values. I don't know if such models are still current, but a global increase in temperature of x degrees doesn't mean every location is just x degrees warmer all the time.
    Yep. Oh goodness. Lately it seems every time some place somewhere gets reported as having a cold snap, someone writes a letter to the editor of our local paper saying "see!!!! global warming is a hoax!!!".
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Yeah, yeah, right, right. Okay.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,517
    I have also heard it said that eventual global warming may lead to longer term cooling down the road--in that you have more evaporation--which leads to more snow, that is cleaner and more reflective--changing Earth's albedo.

    But the problem with that is--if Earth's temp goes up--that's global warming.

    If Earths temp goes down--that's global warming...and if overall the temp doesn't change much be we have wild weather and it gets hotter where it gets hot and colder where it gets cold...then that's global warming too.

    I cannot help but be reminded of individuals who sold elixirs of life.

    If you get better (remission) I cured you.

    If you don't get better, or worse--I arrested the development of your cancer.

    If you do get worse, well, you'd be dead, so you just need to buy more.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,803
    As a guy who thinks of himself as a comedian living in Buffalo NY, global warming is the worst name ever. I cannot help but notice the lack of snow in winter, and less frequent rain all the time; but neither really scream "warming". I really prefer "climate change" over "global warming".

    This link covers names and a tiny bit of history. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ther_name.html

    (sorry for all the edits and typos, my iPhone likes to pick random words.)
    Last edited by Solfe; 2013-Nov-16 at 08:28 PM.
    Solfe

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,517
    Climate change is a better moniker.

    One of the things that worry me is how we detect CO2. Now I think we have a detector in Hawaii, but I cannot help but remember the vast amounts of CO2 vomited out of Lake Nyos.

    Now that was a tiny lake which allowed a huge concentration to build up. But if Loihi were just percolating, and or you have cracks and venting all over the island chain--might that throw things off? CO2 doesn't have a "Made in America" label on it. One more reason to mourn for OCO and GLORY I suppose?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,031
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    I cannot help but be reminded of individuals who sold elixirs of life.

    If you get better (remission) I cured you.

    If you don't get better, or worse--I arrested the development of your cancer.

    If you do get worse, well, you'd be dead, so you just need to buy more.
    publiusr,

    Be very careful. You are getting very close to advocating ATM in Q&A and violating our policy on AGW/Climate Change discussions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798
    I guess the idea of global warming is off, global climate change is better. I imagine some other term will be better in the future. Perhaps global homeostatic decay. If anyone knew what global homeostasis might be. Maybe we will encounter tropospheric decompostion, acidic ocean dumps, etc.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I guess the idea of global warming is off, global climate change is better. I imagine some other term will be better in the future. Perhaps global homeostatic decay. If anyone knew what global homeostasis might be. Maybe we will encounter tropospheric decompostion, acidic ocean dumps, etc.
    Global warming is a key scientific descriptor of the fact that current action to increase the quantity of atmospheric CO2 by about 40 gigatonnes a year is increasing average temperatures. Atmospheric CO2 allows light to enter but does not allow heat to leave, so more CO2 = hotter world. Over the last decade most of this extra trapped heat has found its way into the oceans rather than the atmosphere, so heat is increasing globally at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs of energy per second.

    Homeostasis is the tendency of a system to self-correct. If CO2 emissions produce a runaway greenhouse effect then the earth could be sterilized as James Hansen describes in his excellent book Storms of My Grandchildren. That would put an end to the homeostasis produced by life, although life might eventually evolve again.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Homeostasis is the tendency of a system to self-correct.
    I think Copernicus was asking what the specific dynamic balance of homeostasis would be, since the global climate changes constantly over long timescales. What would be the "correct" it self-corrects to?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I think Copernicus was asking what the specific dynamic balance of homeostasis would be, since the global climate changes constantly over long timescales. What would be the "correct" it self-corrects to?
    The 'correct' state of homeostasis is that the planet remains biophilic. The idea from James Lovelock is that life stabilises the global climate to preserve biophilic conditions. In The Ages of Gaia he wrote "The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota."

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I think Copernicus was asking what the specific dynamic balance of homeostasis would be, since the global climate changes constantly over long timescales. What would be the "correct" it self-corrects to?
    Right. Obviously carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past, maybe even 5000 or 10000 compared to 340 now. But that doesn't mean the buffer feedback mechanisms are the same now as they were then.
    Will CO2 caused global warming essentially be neutral for the planet, or in the future lead to a better earth balance or runaway differential equation type catastrophe?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Right. Obviously carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past, maybe even 5000 or 10000 compared to 340 now. But that doesn't mean the buffer feedback mechanisms are the same now as they were then. Will CO2 caused global warming essentially be neutral for the planet, or in the future lead to a better earth balance or runaway differential equation type catastrophe?
    The figure now is 400, not 340. When CO2 was last at its current level about fifteen million years ago, the sea level was more than thirty metres higher and average temperature was up to 5 degrees C hotter. When CO2 was above 0.1% the sea level was 70 metres higher. Unless we work out how to remove the excess CO2 we have added to the air, we can expect a new planetary stabilisation to arrive with higher sea level, worse storms and heatwaves, and severe economic and social disruption.

    The planet has never experienced climate change as rapid as we are now inflicting, unless you count asteroid impacts. Anthropogenic climate change is producing the sixth extinction event. The massive rapid loss of biodiversity produced by shifting carbon from the crust to the atmosphere is not 'neutral' in planetary terms, but serves to reduce complexity and increase risk. The risk of runaway greenhouse is a bit like Russian Roulette with two bullets.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,803
    Grumble... Grumble... NatGeo dumbed it down... Grumble... Grumble...

    Link to original article with all the big words and diagrams.
    Solfe

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    The figure now is 400, not 340. When CO2 was last at its current level about fifteen million years ago, the sea level was more than thirty metres higher and average temperature was up to 5 degrees C hotter. When CO2 was above 0.1% the sea level was 70 metres higher. Unless we work out how to remove the excess CO2 we have added to the air, we can expect a new planetary stabilisation to arrive with higher sea level, worse storms and heatwaves, and severe economic and social disruption.

    The planet has never experienced climate change as rapid as we are now inflicting, unless you count asteroid impacts. Anthropogenic climate change is producing the sixth extinction event. The massive rapid loss of biodiversity produced by shifting carbon from the crust to the atmosphere is not 'neutral' in planetary terms, but serves to reduce complexity and increase risk. The risk of runaway greenhouse is a bit like Russian Roulette with two bullets.
    I can't see any scenario where this does not end badly for humans. Even if we figure out how to stop producing too much CO2 we will only enable a scenario where the earth can carry 15 billion humans until collapse, instead of 9 billion. But the data you gave is very compelling anyways.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I can't see any scenario where this does not end badly for humans. Even if we figure out how to stop producing too much CO2 we will only enable a scenario where the earth can carry 15 billion humans until collapse, instead of 9 billion. But the data you gave is very compelling anyways.
    We stop reproducing irresponsibly and learn some self-control by hard necessity?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    We stop reproducing irresponsibly and learn some self-control by hard necessity?
    History indicates that humanity generally doesn't learn but repeats mistakes. Indications are that measures will be too late to head off the melt. Unless perhaps some drastic action is taken to cut insolation.

    Maybe a worldwide catastrophe would have a long term effect on self-control. I often wonder if the Native American environmental ethics are the result of killing off the ice age animals leading to mass starvation.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    History indicates that humanity generally doesn't learn but repeats mistakes. Indications are that measures will be too late to head off the melt. Unless perhaps some drastic action is taken to cut insolation.

    Maybe a worldwide catastrophe would have a long term effect on self-control. I often wonder if the Native American environmental ethics are the result of killing off the ice age animals leading to mass starvation.
    I don't really think the Native Americans had a significant affect of ice age animals dying. I think the following article is much more plausible considering the dead mammoths are found. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...mpact-20120612

    As far as humans go. We are so close to replacing fossil fuels it isn't even funny. The battery, photovoltaic, fuel cell, windmill, hydrogen economy massive ramp is likely only 10 years away at most. My fear is that is that it will only make the eventual over population and mass death problem worse. But I likely won't be around in 85 years. The other unknown is when will a killer virus, from some rogue scientist, strike. It is almost impossible to believe that they are not out there.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I don't really think the Native Americans had a significant affect of ice age animals dying. I think the following article is much more plausible considering the dead mammoths are found. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...mpact-20120612
    Not everyone subscribes to the impact theory. I have little trouble imagining the invasive species man destabilizing the existing ecology. They successfully preyed on the very largest animals. What was there to prevent the human population from growing to the point of causing a scarcity of game and a collapse of the ecosystem? Later, the newcomers nearly wiped out the millions of buffalo in a few decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    As far as humans go. We are so close to replacing fossil fuels it isn't even funny. The battery, photovoltaic, fuel cell, windmill, hydrogen economy massive ramp is likely only 10 years away at most. My fear is that is that it will only make the eventual over population and mass death problem worse. But I likely won't be around in 85 years. The other unknown is when will a killer virus, from some rogue scientist, strike. It is almost impossible to believe that they are not out there.
    Solar energy, windmills and batteries will not replace coal and oil in 10 years or even 50 years. These sources are not reliable and the investment required to scale them is high. Consider the experience Germany is having. In spite of a huge investment in solar and wind, they backslide to square one on their carbon emissions when they shut down their nukes in the paranoia following Fujiyama. They are now burning more coal than they were in spite of their investment.

    If there is any hope for sustaining the world economy it's nuclear power.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    co2 is in the spotlight because we emit it but water vapour in the air is a far bigger greenhouse blanket over a much wider range of frequencies, so what is the relationship between CO2 and water vapour? And it seems the oceans have warmed more than expected, the atmosphere less, so the range of predictions shifts with time. Ocean acidification from CO2 may turn out to be the first trouble spot. We cannot expect specific predictions to be right about the balance of weather effects. Prediction is very tricky, especially about the future
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Indications are that measures will be too late to head off the melt. Unless perhaps some drastic action is taken to cut insolation.
    The recent IPCC Report says “A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period.”

    The IPCC is saying that carbon dioxide removal can reverse climate change. Action to block insolation is a possible bandaid measure, but solar radiation management does not address acidification or the overall risk of a CO2 enriched atmosphere. Solar radiation management might be an interim measure to stop the Arctic from melting while we develop long term commercial methods to mine CO2 from the air. Bjorn Lomborg discussed the need for R&D in this recent newspaper article. Lomborg says (summarised extract)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjorn Lomborg
    THE past 20 years of international climate negotiations have essentially achieved nothing. Japan's announcement that it is scrapping its targets and focusing on research and development of green technologies could be the beginning of a breakthrough for smarter climate policies. Japan has promised to spend $110 billion across five years from private and public sources for innovation in environmental and energy technologies. This approach strongly differs from conventional policies to address global warming. More effective investment in research and development into new energy sources is the smartest approach to tackle climate change. The EU is committed to cutting carbon emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This will cost, according to an averaging of all the available energy-economic models, $250bn a year. By the end of the century (after a total cost of more than $20 trillion), this will reduce the projected temperature increase by a mere 0.05C. CO2 emissions have risen by about 57 per cent since 1990. We need to look at a different approach. The smartest long-term solution is to focus on innovating future green energy through R&D, rather than subsidising its current use. Such innovation would push down the costs for future generations of wind, solar and other amazing possibilities. If green technology could be cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch. All nations spending 0.2 per cent of their GDP (about $100bn globally) on R&D into green energy sources could solve global warming in the medium term by creating cheap, green energy sources everyone wants. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opin....QdFm7L44.dpuf
    Last edited by Robert Tulip; 2013-Nov-23 at 10:18 AM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    The recent IPCC Report says A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period.
    There's an app for that; trees.

    Quick, everyone eat some Rain Forest Crunch ice cream!

    The smartest long-term solution is to focus on innovating future green energy through R&D, rather than subsidising its current use.
    Agreed. I wish I could say I was confident that this solution will be implemented, but our track record on doing the smartest things hasn't been that good...
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    There is a known solution to CO2 emissions within easy reach and that is nuclear power. The problems associated with using solar and wind are far from solved (storage/cost). It is not clear that these approaches can be economically viable.

    We can add gigawatts of nuclear energy per plant, each producing energy day and night year round for as much as 50 years and occupying a few acres of land. No photovoltaic field, solar concentrator or wind farm can come close. We can use nuclear energy to power electric cars solving both the fuel and base-load problems. Waiting for the "green solution" will continue to fail to reduce emissions.

    So what will happen? Global warming consequences will become reality. Nuclear plants will finally be built but too late to stop the melting. Hence drastic measures are likely to be taken like blocking insolation with unknown side-effects.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    There is a known solution to CO2 emissions within easy reach and that is nuclear power. The problems associated with using solar and wind are far from solved (storage/cost). It is not clear that these approaches can be economically viable.
    And a large scale increase in nuclear power, while technologically very feasible, is probably not going to become socially viable any time soon. It's just too unpopular right now.

    Waiting for the "green solution" will continue to fail to reduce emissions.
    Post # 26 refers to not passively "waiting" but rather actively pursuing green energy, something we have not on the whole been doing. And "green" does not merely cover wind and solar, but biofuels of various sorts. I won't go into the politics of energy independence, but it is the driving force behind several US military R&D projects such as algae-oil jet fuel.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    And a large scale increase in nuclear power, while technologically very feasible, is probably not going to become socially viable any time soon. It's just too unpopular right now.
    Agree. That's why I said construction will only start after the seriousness (of warming) is apparent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Post # 26 refers to not passively "waiting" but rather actively pursuing green energy, something we have not on the whole been doing. And "green" does not merely cover wind and solar, but biofuels of various sorts. I won't go into the politics of energy independence, but it is the driving force behind several US military R&D projects such as algae-oil jet fuel.
    But what new green magic are we thinking is possible? I've read a scathing criticism of the US military's attempts at biofuels. They just are not economically practical. The problem is that almost as much energy (derived from oil) goes in as comes out. Also note that all biofuels produce their energy from sunlight. The efficiency of this conversion of sunlight into fuel energy is dismal. Then of course the fuel is burned with an efficiency usually less than 30%.

    As long as people think there is some magical green solution just around the corner, they will delay action. That is why the fossil fuel companies promote green energy in their advertising.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •