Impact of climate change may be underestimated - Article worth reading

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288

The earth's climate has always been changing. Every day and night the earth changes, the seasons are also change. Look at the temperatures for the last thousand years on wiki and you willl see they have been raising for a few hundred years. There is no spike since the industrial revolution. Its just another bullshit reason to tax. If there really was a problem then it stands to reason the gov should spend some of the $ on fixing the pollution problems, but they dont change a single thing.

Apparently Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago, it even let regular vikings live there albet it was still cold. They then disappeared when the earth experienced a mini ice age, and drop in temps. Dont believe everything you see.

Suposedly the red lines are temps from newer sources, its amazing how things jump not only after the industrial revolution but immediately before that aswell. Of course we affect the earth, but we are nothing cmpared to nature itself, things like volcanos spew out enormous amounts of bad gasses that must be several magnitudes more than the entire mankind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

MP: Dont believe everything you see.

You wrote this for the sake of irony, I presume.

Fundamental Steps Needed Now in Global Redesign of Earth System Governance,
Experts Say     ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2012)

Some 32 social scientists and researchers from around the world, including a
Senior Sustainability Scholar at Arizona State University, have concluded that
fundamental reforms of global environmental governance are needed to avoid
dangerous changes in the Earth system. The scientists argued in the March 16
edition of the journal Science that the time is now for a "constitutional
moment" in world politics.
 
Research now indicates that the world is nearing critical tipping points in the
Earth system, including on climate and biodiversity, which if not addressed
through a new framework of governance could lead to rapid and irreversible
change.

"Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of
Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the
previous 500,000 years," wrote the authors in the opening of "Navigating the
Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance."

Reducing the risk of potential global environmental disaster requires the
development of "a clear and ambitious roadmap for institutional change and
effective sustainability governance within the next decade," comparable in
scale and importance to the reform of international governance that followed
World War II, they wrote.

In particular, the group argued for the creation of a Sustainable Development
Council that would better integrate sustainability concerns across the United
Nations system. Giving a leading role to the 20 largest economies (G20) would
help the council act effectively. The authors also suggested an upgrade of the
UN Environment Program to a full-fledged international organization, a move
that would give it greater authority and more secure funding

To keep these institutions accountable to the public, the scientists called for
stronger consultative rights for representatives of civil society, including
representatives from developing countries, NGOs, consumers and indigenous
peoples.

"We should seek input from people closest to the ground, not just from the
elites, not just at the 30,000-feet level," noted Kenneth W. Abbott, a professor
of international relations in ASU's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.
"Consultations should not take place only at the global scale, where the
broadest policies are created, but also at local scales, smaller scales, all
scales," he said.

To improve the speed of decision-making in international negotiations, the
authors called for stronger reliance on qualified majority voting. "There has
to be a change in international negotiating procedures from the current
situation, in which no action can be taken unless consensus is reached among
all participating governments," Abbott said.

The authors also called for governments "to close remaining regulatory gaps at
the global level," including the treatment of emerging technologies.

"A great deal of attention has been given to issues such as climate change, yet
nanotechnology and other emerging technologies, which may bring significant
benefits, also carry potential risks for sustainable development," Abbott said.

Relying on research by Abbott and his colleagues at ASU's College of Law, the
authors wrote that emerging technologies "need an international institutional
arrangement-such as one or several multilateral framework conventions" to
support forecasting and transparency, and to ensure that environmental risks
are taken into account.

"Working to make the world economy more green and to create an effective
institutional framework for sustainable development will be the two main focal
points at this summer's United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in
Rio de Janeiro," Abbott said. "This article was written to bring urgency to
those discussions and to outline specific 'building blocks' for a more
effective and sustainable Earth system governance system."

The authors also argued for increased financial support for poorer nations.
"More substantial financial resources could be made available through novel
financial mechanisms, such as global emissions markets or air transportation
levies for sustainability purposes," they wrote.

Lead author Frank Biermann, of Free University Amsterdam and Lund University,
Sweden, said, "Societies must change course to steer away from critical tipping
points in the Earth system that could lead to rapid and irreversible change.
Incremental change is no longer sufficient to bring about societal change at
the level and with the speed needed to stop Earth system transformation.

"Structural change in global governance is needed, both inside and outside the
UN system and involving both public and private actors," said Biermann, who
also is chair of the scientific steering committee of the Earth System
Governance Project.

All 32 authors of the Science article are affiliated with the Earth System
Governance Project, a global alliance of researchers and leading research
institutions, specializing in the scientific study of international and
national environmental governance. ASU's Abbott is one of some 50 lead faculty
of the Earth System Governance Project. Lead faculty are scientists of high
international reputation who share responsibility for research on earth system
governance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120316195338.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm

MP: If there really was a problem then it stands to reason the gov should spend some of the $ on fixing the pollution problems, but they dont change a single thing.

Not true.

I work for an industrial control systems engineering & construction firm and in the last five years we have landed a number of  projects designing/installing powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection systems PRECISELY because the gov't implemented regulations to reduce pollutants in the air.  Otherwise, these plants wouldn't be spending that money on PAC injection systems since there's no ROI in it.

That's just one example I'm familiar with personally.

SBC  

MP: Of course we affect the earth, but we are nothing cmpared to nature itself, things like volcanos spew out enormous amounts of bad gasses that must be several magnitudes more than the entire mankind.

Also not true.  Why are you spreading counter-knowledge and misinformation?  It's not hard to get the facts.

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO₂ emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO₂ than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO₂ emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO₂ that dwarfs the annual CO₂ emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO₂ emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO₂ emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO₂ estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO₂ output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kilauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO₂ emission rate to the anthropogenic CO₂ emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO₂ estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO₂ emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions dwarf global volcanic CO₂ emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

glenster & SBC

We need to wake up, and stop the denial.  I read an interesting article this morning about our limitless sustainable energy resource -- the sun.  The use of fossil fuels is really doing a number on the planet. 

For anyone who would like to read the article, here's the link.

http://www.greenconduct.com/articles/2012/03/26/why-dig-for-energy-when-were-bombarded-every-day/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

t

While we're on the subject I just saw this article this morning on the dailymail.uk. Also why did they stop calling it global warming and start calling it "climate change"? isn't the climate and universe in general always changing? Seems like circular reasoning. Wake up people this whole thing is a liberal democRAT scam to steal money for more silly liberal pet projects and make us all slaves just like in the USSR see http://prisonplanet.tv.

Evidence that the Earth heated up over a 1,000 years ago was found in a rare mineral called ikaite

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html#ixzz1qF886nHn

What do you think of this comment after the article, tt2c?

So, the Earth cooled *coincidentally* as up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries, which reduced the output of CO2 that had been steadily increasing over thousands of years. The CO2 would have been rapidly assimilated by seawater, causing temperatures to plummet, until the human population would again grow to it's pre-plague levels, releasing more and more CO2, bringing the warming effect of CO2 back to, and far past where it was. ...Which perfectly would prove a HUMAN cause to global warming.

t

Nothing will drastically change until it is too late. The people who control the oil, control the sheeple, and it's ALL for MONEY and POWER. Sad to say, but oil has transformed our lives for the better but it will also transform our lives for the worse when it becomes too expensive to extract.

@talesin:

The statement "up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries" doesn't add up. The black plague mostly was confined to Europe which never has held the majority of earths population. Sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water.

Sweet:

The projects that you mention the gov spending money are token. Government is often involved in many token nonsense projects to justify some operation, but in the end its always about money, case in point Speed Cameras. Tey arent about saving lives or stopping speeding they are a money grab.

@Tales

So, the Earth cooled *coincidentally* as up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries, which reduced the output of CO2 that had been steadily increasing over thousands of years. 

TooTired:

The statement "up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries" doesn't add up. The black plague mostly was confined to Europe which never has held the majority of earths population. Sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water.

MP

Are we to truely believe our impact in contributing carbon is anywhere equivalent to the amount that was reduced when your black deaths killed all those people ? Of course not, anyone can see for themselves our foot print is significantly larger. Did wiping out 30 million in the 1300-1500 really reduce temperature by the same amount that 600m in Europe in the 1900 added ? Does that make any sense, how could 30m dying take away as much as 600m today add ?

I get a ton of heat for my opinion on this but here we go again.

I support laws for the reduction and polution.  I think it is a good goal to aspire to.

I am not convinced that we as a species should take action to adjust the climate artificially due to a highly political subject.  The more political money you throw at the scientific community for the sake of politics, only muddies the result.

Right now we are convinced that we are heating up the earth and there are talks on how to cool it down.  Given that the earth has been around for MILLIONS of years before us, I think it is irrational we should do anything ON PURPOSE to alter it's climate based on the findings of a mere century.

That comment usually gets change advocates to toss me into the "deniers' camp.

I don't think we don't have an impact on the climate, but I am for more of reduction of our footprint over the politically charge discussion of making infrastructure changes aimed at cooling the planet.

If you give a pack of scientists a stack of money and tell them to prove climate change, they will come back with very convincing charts and data supporting it.  If you give the same scientists a stack of money and tell them to prove the opposite, they will come back with the opposite data.

It needs to be less political and more about facts since we are talking about a potentially irreversable change that may affect our survival as a species.

It can only be less political when the left and the right stop thowing money around to prove their slant of the facts.

Sweet:

Also not true.  Why are you spreading counter-knowledge and misinformation?  It's not hard to get the facts.

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO₂ emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO₂ than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO₂ emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO₂ that dwarfs the annual CO₂ emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO₂ emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO₂ emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO₂ estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO₂ output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kilauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO₂ emission rate to the anthropogenic CO₂ emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO₂ estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

 

MP

Strange wiki says 30B and your scientist says 35B tonnes of CO, while he says 130M to 440M tonnes from volcanos.  Theres quite a difference between 0.13 to 0.44 by a factor of 3.5 and your quotes are off by almost 15% from my source in wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Rank	Country	Annual CO2 emissions[7][8] (in thousands of metric tonnes)	Percentage of global total
	World	29,888,121	100%
1	China[9]	7,031,916	23.33%
2	United States	5,461,014	18.11%
-	European Union (27)	4,177,817 [10]

14.04%

It doesnt take a genius to see that one in Iceland sent an ash cloud that covered from Iceland all the way across siberia, amounts to a very large number of ommitted mass and gasses. Are we too bleieve that almost no bad gasses that affect the climate made their way out ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull

The grounding of European flights avoided about 344×10⁶ kg of CO₂ emissions per day, while the volcano emitted about 150×10⁶ kg of CO₂ per day.^[1]

What about the other gasses ? Here in Iceland we have one lousy volcano almost the equivalent of all planes in Europe. As we know there are lots of volcanos around the earth, while not errupting they do on occassion errupt giving enormous amounts of matter. Carbon is not the only thing released by them. that affects the weather.

JKust look at Krakatoa, in one erruption global temperatures dropped 1.2 degrees, that change completely shames mans industrial revolution impact!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

Global climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount ofsulfur dioxide (SO₂) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H₂SO₃) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloudreflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.^[10]

 

Now thats power, sorry puny humans dont impact the world in the same way quite as dramatically. WHile i do hate pollution, one shouldnt lie about global warming. The world has been warming on the same trend much before the industrial age.

SBC

You have completely ignored the fact that volcanos spew out other gasses that affect the environment. Volcanos spew out vast amounts of sulfur etc, to think that only carbon affects the weather and environment is shallow.

Take a look at this year and the previous, Europe had record winters, and we in the southern hemisphere didnt have a summer at all. There were almost no days in the mid 30's C, when in past years we would always have 30s in January. Does that really sound like global warming ?

I cant help but wonder if yor business interests have led you to believe the hype for personal benefit. Do yo believe because its good business ?

Next year a cloud of interstellar dust could drift into our solar system putting us into a ice age almost overnight- it is thought to have happened before. Humans just can't predict the future of our climate very well.- and don't forget polar reversal, that is sure to happen, but probably after I am dead. Climate is impossible to steer on a scale that is measured in human generations.

What we can control, is the overpopulation of our planet that is consuming all our natural resources- this we can control, but most countries are turning a blind eye to this issue.

The problem is anytime someone offers some real data that refutes anything in the liberal ideaology that one is immediatly labeled stupid and full of mis-information. Speaking of mis-information-the scientists have manipulated the data of global warming err climate change  to support their politics, see www.climategate.com. And honestly who could trust that Al Gore slimebag? He created a carbon trading market before certain legislation was to be passed tell me how is this whole thing not about money and control?

I'm a Global Warming (now "Climate Change") apostate. That being the case I fully expect some of you to shun me for my difference in beleif. Because make no mistake it is another belief system.

Global Warming (or whatever you like to call it) has been invented to extract more taxes, a global tax if you will. Every cent extracted in taxes ultimately come from the little person. The fact that there's enough people for "climate change" initatives (aka taxes) doesn't make its message any more beleivable, it simply shows how controlled people are by mainstream media.

How much do you pay for me to read this dreck?