# IPCC climate change forcast



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Just wanted to share a link with everyone. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2001 is available fully online. The IPCC is a UN sanctioned panel of hundreds of scientists from around the world focused on studying and bringing awareness to the issues of global warming and climate change. My link is to the section of the report geared to policy-makers. The lingo is pretty easy to get and just a quick browse ignoring any terms you don't understand will still be understandable for most people. Use the "next page" bottons on the top and bottom left of the page to navigate. The section for policy-makers is 6-8 pages long. Definately a good thing to read

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

hehe. That is one document I am quite familiar with.


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Are you a contributer?

Look what I just noticed- wanna have a post race?


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

Post race? Don't make me spam meaningless posts about how my avatar is better than yours!

I'm not a contributor to that one but I have referenced it in a paper or 2. I think I actually started grad school in 2001 though!


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

Is global warming really a primary concern?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to global warming. Not to the point that I'm sticking my head in the sand about it, but do we really understand this well enough to be making policy decisions about it? We're pretty good at collecting data, but understanding what the data means is another story.

It seems plausible that CO2 levels are on the way up (good for plants huh?). It also seems plausible that average temps are rising. What seems less plausible is that we have even the slightest insight about how a system as complex as an entire planet is going to respond to this. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that there are short and long-term cycles of heating and cooling that we don't understand and we're making inferences that aren't valid. It's also possible that natural processes can mediate the shift and that the planet's response may lag a few decades behind our perterbations. Our database of reliable climate records don't go back all that far - maybe 0.001% of the earth's history.

Worthy of careful observation and scrutiny - absolutely. Understood well enough to change how we live? Maybe not yet.


----------



## Jane in Upton (Aug 10, 2005)

Did any of you see the Nova special about "Dimming the Sun". THAT was interesting, too. In short, the scientists interviewed postulated that particulate matter in the atmosphere has contributed to a measurable decrease in intensity of sunlight actually striking the earth. Supporting data included a comparison of intensity measurements spanning from the early 1950s through now and recent marked decreases in rates of evaporation (shown to be from decreased energy absorption from sunlight rather than from changes in wind-related evaporation).

The theory is that this dimming is having a global cooling effect, which offsets global warming, in a kind of tug of war. Each force is actually exerting a lot of influence (again, like a tug of war) but in opposite directions. This skews the data about the situation to make it appear as if the global warming trend is much less significant than it would be if NOT offset by the dimming. 

Thanks for the link, Dennis!
-Jane


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol5no1/extreme.html

Is global warming a primary concern: Yes. Even with the fact that our current fossil fuel usage will mean a depletion of the world's known reserves with in the next ~50 years, in that time our usage will cause at least a doubling from the current CO2 levels of 370ppm, an exponential increase of ~1% a year. Based on climate models which are found to be accurate when compared to a 3+ year window, we can accurately predict a 2+ degree increase over the next 100 years. Due to the oceans lag behind the rest of the climate, temps will not top out at the same time as CO2 increases stop. Temps will continue to rise for a very long time afterwards. Basically the global increase in temps since the beginning of the industrial revolution are are still ahead of the oceans heat sink...meaning that if today we stopped increasing CO2 production and decreasing carbon cycling land use there would still be a steady rise in surface temps for a long time.

Check out photos of how the sea ice coverage has changed just in the last decade. Ice core, sediment, coral cores, etc, etc all give us very reliable data about past climate conditions, CO2 levels, temps, ocean salinity, etc. Current models can very accurately reproduce those findings when based on windows smaller than 10 years and prove the validity of the models.

I feel our influence on the climate is much more important than we realize and we are making those changes at an alarming rate. Its not just the additions of CO2 and other GHGs, or the hole in the ozone but many of the systems of checks the plants has developed are also being destroyed. Sure, CO2 levels were as high when the dinosaurs existed but they weren't cutting down all the trees and removing huge portions of the carbon sink. Co2 sure is good for plants, but it also is great for increased pollen production (a slight increase in CO2 and temp. equals a huge increase in pollen production) and higher temps mean stronger virus/bacteria (think scarey center of Africa plagues) with larger area of survival.

So to me its very important, especially for future generations....


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

I find the data reported to be interesting and worthwhile. You do see a lot of data. About the dimming affect, I thought that this had decreased in the last 10 years. So much data is available.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3756751.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4520831.stm

You see a lot of information in the news about global warming. Even the youngest person today may not live to see the bad affects. (unless you count increased precipitation, large waves and increased number of hurricanes)

A question about global warming. Has the planet recovered from the last mini iceage that occurred during the black plague era? 
Can they grow grapes for wine in Great Britain as they used to (per the History channel)?

It does seem that with the potential depletion of the worlds petroleum supply within our lifetime this would be a pressing matter. People in Brazil have the option of using alcohol/100 % ethanol in their vehicle. E85 appear to be the best alternative for our climate but is just not available in many places. At least in the midwest, this could be made available.


----------



## raven_wilde (Nov 16, 2005)

Wiste-
As a 'young' person (23) I fully believe that by the time I am an 'old' person (whatever age that means) I will be looking out onto a world that is vastly different from the one we have now. Already, over the course of my compartatively short life I can tell you that when I was a child the Southern Michigan winters were certainly colder, and the seasons in general more predictable... I will not be surprised at all if we continue to have winters much like this last one, mild and actually bearable... and although I am a person who dislikes cold weather, I am aware of the problems that will arise all over the globe, which prevents me from enjoying a 65 degree day in February... 

Indeed the 'bad' effects will likely increase exponentially, for instance, the temperatures of the world's oceans are increasing... combine this with overfishing and I will not be surprised if by the time I am eighty the price of Amaebi (sweet shrimp- one of my favs) at the sushi bar will be exorbitant... even if the hurricanes, floods, and blizzard cycles are altered humanity will soldier on, but it's going to be in the areas of life's little luxuries that we are going to feel the climate pinch... for instance, who the hell is going to go to Maine when there are no more lobsters? Or Maryland, when you can't get a good bucket of crabs because they are either extinct from climate change and overfishing, or just plain toxic from pollution? 

There are a whole plethora of examples I could pick to illustrate this as well, but as I 'fish' person I've chosen these, and it's led me to another point, one which does kind of keep me up at night sometimes...

Right now, as a planted tank hobbyist, if my heart so desires, and my pocket-book can support it, I can order pretty much any aquatic plant or animal from any country on Earth... it will be packaged, and flown into this country within a week or so, sometimes sooner depending on customs, an organization of the importer, etc. This global level of commerce has, I believe, contributed so much more to the hobby in the last ten years than maybe anything else. What happens in 20-30 years (if that) when we are out of the fossil fuels that power the FedEx jets and the UPS trucks? Is the hobby, along with global commerce, inherently doomed?

Sorry for the rambling/ranting, despite it being almost 2 o' clock in the PM here I have not yet had my coffee and that is contributing to my incoherence... but the ideas of global change in the not-to-distant future (aka my lifetime) are a bit of a pet subject for me, and I could go on all day and night like this.


----------



## nailalc (Mar 17, 2006)

In my opinion, the questions is this: Should we be worried about the planet continually warming upon no end or should we start worrying about an oncoming ice age? The second one is the bigger problem........

If enough ice in the polar ice caps melts, there will be a huge influx of freshwater into the oceans near the poles. Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, thus it rides on top the saltwater. This density difference could have a huge impact on the global climate. 

All of our weather systems and/or climate are driven by oceanic currents, both warm and cold. The ocean currents are driven by a simple scientific process. Warm things rise and cool things sink. Ocean water at the equator warms and thus it rises to the surface. Ocean water at the poles cools and sinks towards the bottom. This rising/sinking difference is the cause of the ocean currents - as water rises, there must be some pulled from elsewhere to replace it, same for sinking water, as it sinks due to temperature change it must be replaced. The ocean current cycle drives the entire global weather system.

Back to the density problem. With an influx of less dense freshwater sitting on top of more dense saltwater there can not be any mixing or sinking of the water at the poles. It's like trying to mix oil and water. If water doesn't sink in the poles, there's no need for anything to replace it, thus no warm water would be pulled from the equator. No more ocean currents. Good place to be at this time is near the equator, not in the higher latitudes. 

***as a side note, we should run out of fossil fuels long before 50 years. Most of China has dumped using coal as an energy source and are into the petroleum market big time. As everyone knows, they have the most people and if they keep increasing petroleum usage rates as they have been, they will replace the U.S. as the number one user of petroleum. And that will cut into the 50 year level dramatically. 

To replace the petroleum economy that we have now, I have just two words: hydrogen economy. I've taken too much time so I won't get into that topic, but our politicians worldwide need to devote funds for research into the hydrogen economy..........................


----------



## raven_wilde (Nov 16, 2005)

nailalc said:


> To replace the petroleum economy that we have now, I have just two words: hydrogen economy. I've taken too much time so I won't get into that topic, but our politicians worldwide need to devote funds for research into the hydrogen economy..........................


Hydrogen is a dead end solution. Hydrogen is not available naturally in large quantities. The most effective way to get hydrogen is to split up molecules of H2O. The process to achieve this in the end uses up almost twice as much energy as is produced. Oftentimes, as is currently the practice, the fuel used for this process is in fact a fossil fuel, which is not solving the problem of petroleum dependency. Also it would seem to me that even if solar or nuclear fuel is used to power the molecular process used to make Hydrogen the whole system is inherently inefficient. Refining renewable energy processes, such as wind and solar would seem to be a better option... I would even be on board for an increase in nuclear energy if we could find some way to deal with the waste produced that didn't include burying it in the desert and pretending it is not there.

And speaking of nuclear energy, for those of you who don't realize, this Wednesday, April 26th, is the 20th anniversary of the disaster at Chernobyl... the BBC has some excellent coverage of it at their website:

BBC.com: Chernobyl.

While I am certainly not one of those rabid "No Nuke" fanatics I am nonetheless very cautious of humanity becoming dependent upon so volatile a fuel source.


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

There are cars that run using hydrogen fuel cells. This may be the future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2880975.stm

Regarding nuclear power, perhaps the Russians got it wrong but the US Navy has been running nuclear powered ships and submarines for many years without any serious mishap. (Ignoring the Thresher and the Scorpian, which were many years ago). As mentioned above, the problem is the waste.

Offshore solar, wind and wave power appears to me to be the best alternative energy sources. Near term ethanol appears to be a good alternative.


----------



## nailalc (Mar 17, 2006)

You're right, hydrogen is a dead end solution meaning that it takes a lot of energy to use hydrogen. Renewable resources are also at the time being not viable for the global market. Locally, resources like wind, solar and hydro are great, the trouble is that there is a large amount of energy lost through the transmission of these sources. My local electric company is using more and more wind and hydro to generate electricity as opposed to coal. Unfortunately they tend to not be cost effective for regions that aren't windy, have rivers/dams, or tend to be overcast. 

Unless politicians decide to fund research on alternative fuel sources, (wind, hydro, solar, hydrogen, tidal, geothermal, etc.) realistically there will be little change. Frankly, politicians won't bother sponsoring bills like these that search for an answer to a question that will be severely needed in 20 years. Most of the politicians will be out of office within 10, so they focus on what will be needed in those 10 years.

I'm guessing that energy crisis will come up and bite us in the butt and without the research, the fall back option will be nuclear energy because it is something that is relatively common (443 plants worldwide, 17% of world's electric energy). But like it's been stated, you're going to need a lot of mountains to bury the nuclear waste under.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Regarding energy, I suspect that in the end, like most things, we'll figure something out. We're pretty resourceful little buggers as animals go. The way will be a little bumpy since change always is, but I tend to be optimistic about things. We'd really be doing ourselves a favor to develop new technologies now, but we're also still pretty much tied to the stimulus/response cycle - very common among animals. You'll be amazed at the pace of energy research once gas hits $20 a gallon.

No offense to other people who have commented here, but I'd like to offer a counterpoint to a few items. For the first time in history we're now able to monitor and record a good percentage of what is going on in the world. I propose that there have always been rising and falling populations of species X, and that glaciers have been alternating between growing and receeding since the earth was new, and that the wold's climate has never been very stable from year to year. The worst hurricane seasons on record were in the 1920's not today. There is no arguing the fact that we're having an enormous impact on the earth, but the media tends to focus on the doom & gloom side of things.

Making observations about climate change within a span of 20 or 30 years is too small of a sample to draw any scientifically sound conclusions, especially in a limited geographical area. It is human nature to view the present as worse than the past. In the 1970s a large portion of the scientific community was advancing the theory that we were entering a prolonged period of global cooling. If you go back and look at the data they were looking at you might come to the same conclusion. It turns out (probably) that the earth experienced a little blip and things were cooler for a span of a few years. It's funny how things change.

We understand a very small part of a very complicated question.


----------



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

As for the nuclear waste issue, a professor at Texas A&M recently published a paper for plans for a nuclear reactor which would burn its own waste. It's called a thorium cycle reactor. The idea is that thorium is a fuel which is not naturally fissionable, but if you put it the center of a convergence of proton beams, it transmutes into fissionable elements. Once that happens, it fissions in to smaller nuclei. Only short half-life waste is produced. All the calculations have been done, and it would have the required efficency to be cost effective. Unfortunately, as I understand it, there are no takers to build such a reactor, mostly for political reasons.

As far as global warming is concerned, my understanding is that our green house gases emissions have more or less prevented a mini ice age from happening. I think it is foolish to think that we don't understand what greenhouse gases do. The only real open question is how the earth will react to increased green house gas load. That's a much harder question which we don't really know the answer to. Most believable models show non-uniform warming of the earth, including a cooling of some areas. For instance, growing grapes in Britain was mentioned; however, many models predict that increased global warming will lead to a modification of the gulf stream. The gulf stream is a warm ocean current which is one of the primary reasons that Britain isn't ice bound. It is entirely possible that Britain could become significantly cooler in an increasing global warming scenario. 

Also, the mention of winters in Michigan being much more mild now is accurate. The reports all show that snowfall, global has decreased significantly. 

Of course, the major concern is that the earth, above a certain level, will not be able to repair itself from the damage due to global warming in a time scale approriate to human life. No one knows what the critical point is or even if there is one. However, there are indications that it does exist and we aren't too far from it. In the case where we are capable of doing near permanent damage to our habitat, it would be prudent to err on the side of caution and implement large changes now, before we find out that there was a critical point, and we already passed it. 

-Adam


----------



## raven_wilde (Nov 16, 2005)

jude_uc said:


> In the case where we are capable of doing near permanent damage to our habitat, it would be prudent to err on the side of caution and implement large changes now, before we find out that there was a critical point, and we already passed it.


:amen:

Well said Adam, I heartily agree with this. Thanks also for the tip off on the thorium cycle reactor, I will look into this further (much of the book I am currently working on is reliant upon theories of future energy production and climate change, so new resources and ideas are much appreciated).

I also wanted to post a link to NASA World Wind, which is a global mapping program similar to Google Earth, but with much better image resolution. The reason I am recommending it however is that it comes with animations based upon years of satellite imaging that show the depleation of the ice-caps and glacial systems around the world... they are stunning really, and give one a better idea of just what is going on all around the world.


----------



## neil1973 (Feb 23, 2006)

I have also posted this question on the other climate change related thread that is operating at the moment but am also placing it here as well as I am genuinely interested to hear as many people’s ideas as possible.

Assuming for arguments sake that climate change may be real, at least to some extent, then what I think would be really interesting is to hear people’s opinions on:
a)	What effects will be seen?
b)	What will be the actual impacts on peoples lives if any?
c)	Where will these impacts take place? Which people will be affected?

Regards
Neil


----------

