The tsunami in Oceania; typhoons in China and Japan; earthquakes in Japan; Katrina and many others in USA; flood in Central America; earthquake in Pakistan; did I miss something else?
What's happening in the world? Is this the price for 'progress'?
A month ago, there were 9 hurricans in Barcelona and proximity; plus 4 flood; extreme drought; neverending forrest fires...
3 hurricans in north Argentina, 6 in Uruguay...
All that in places where such things never happened before...
What are we doing wrong?
I just keep thinking that one of these days the planet will break apart in pieces.

Well, it isn't necessarily what we are doing wrong (although, we are doing ALOT of things wrong, but i won't get into that). It could just be a thing of nature.

Or, it could be global warming. The icecaps could be melting, raising the water level and throwing off the ocean currents, creating more hurricanes. And if it isn't already happening now, it will eventually.

Don't forget that we all now have access to the international medias. Ever hear of the great Panamanian flood of 1732? Neither have I...

Truth is though that despite the easier access to global media (meaning faster access to every new possible on this planet), it is true that our inteference with the nature to make her more "suitable" to our needs has not coped well with nature itself.
It is true that earths climate has always followed a circle of very frozen eras, followed by dry eras. But maybe we as a human factor have now managed to speed up the pace.
And this is something that its outcome is unknown to everyone. Noone really knows what will really happen if...
Everyone is making speculations

How long would earth last for you or
how long would earth last for itself?

... for itself.

I remember 6 or 7 years back, we used to have spring, summer, autumn and winter, and they lasted their respective 3 months, and they were the way it supposed to be; but with every passing year, autumn was almost disappearing, so 2 or 3 years back we just start to have 2 months of cold weather and the rest of the year, heat. August was a cold month back then, now is like summer; last year we had just 2 cold weeks, the rest of the winter was almost like autumn or even spring. In that area where I used to live, this year had 3 hurricans, and as far as know, never happened before.
I guess nature is defending itself from us or from polution, smoke, etc.

Anybody here who claims to have noticed changes in the earth's climate is deluding themselves. Firstly, most of us/you are very young and can therefore only remember a few years of seasons. Secondly, even if some of us were 100 and could remember every one of those years, that would still be a tiny period of time in the grand scheme of things.

The only evidence I am going to accept in this thread is scientific data, not a bunch of vague comments about how the weather used to be so much better in the good old days.

From a Religious standpoint, the prophecies in the Book of Revelation are coming true. All these Earthquakes and hurricanes, Tornadoes and Tsunamis, Volcanoes along with the wars and famines are all signs that the end is near...

Gnarff - but every generation seems to say the same thing, and yet here we are.

Here we (the human race) will be in another hundred years too, unless we're dumb enough to really go the distance with some nukes or something on that scale. (Then again, maybe a nuclear winter will balance the global warming . . . ;) )

Anybody here who claims to have noticed changes in the earth's climate is deluding themselves. Actually Harbourboy, I have noticed lots of changes, such as less snow in the last 5 years, less rain etc. Also seals and puffins (only 25% of puffins survived on Rathlind Island this year alone because of warmer tempatures) in Ireland are moving further up north, as the waters are too warm for them, and lets not get started on our cod supplies.

I think when you look at the big picture -- as in geological terms -- this is all pretty standard stuff. In fact, things have been much, much worse in the past. Get in a time machine and go back 1 million or 1 billion years and I'm sure you'd be greeted by frequent earthquakes, volcanos, massive, deadly pockets of natural gas seeping out of cracks in the earth.

I'm sure cave men 30,000 years ago faced similar extremes. And like many of us, turned to their imaginary gods for some explanation. I'm not saying Global Warming is a myth, but I suspect that the way many blame every little thing on it is as bad as people saying this is all Revelation coming true.

Ultimately, the earth could care less. We are but fleas upon her backside and she'll notice our passing about as much as she noticed the extinction of countless trillions of other species over the last 1 billion years.

The Earth will last a lot longer than us. Natural "disasters" are only disatrous for us. To the Earth it just serves to shape new landscapes. Life is expendable and goes in cycles.

Somebody told me a swarm of locusts was heading towards the Campbell's soup canning plant. If I were you, I would grab some garlic!

Eventually, global warming will screw us in the rear. It will meltthe polar ice caps, ruining the currents in the ocean and salt to fresh water ratio, causing all kinds of storms. We will end up in another ice age. However, it won't happen during our lifetimes. But still, we should do something about it. Use less natural resources (as in, destroy all SUVs and Hummers), and become more ecologically aware. Perhaps we can save our Earth from being destroyed by us. Or perhaps human's natural greed and lack of caring will ruin us.

5 years is not enough time to set any kind of trends. A lifetime is likely too short of a time frame, as there are geological records of changes to the environment that are more severe than what we see today long before man was able to impact the environment in any way.

There are places on earth that have been setting record low temperatures, having severe winters, and cool summer. Does that mean that these people have a valid claim that we are experiencing global cooling? I saw a picture recently of a stone bridge that was built around 2000 years ago in the Middle East that was only discovered because the river that it crossed had dropped to "record low levels". The river has been underwater for decades, and no one new it was there, but apparently at some time a couple thousand years ago the "record low" level of the river must have been normal. Individually, this type of evidence just doesn’t support any grand theories environmental changes.

No doubt that man is having an impact upon the environment, but to use recent experiences as proof of the severity of the impact is irrational.

Saber, we couldn't destroy the earth if we tried. This planet started out as a ball of molten rock and poisonous gases, and it found its way into the balance we see today. Even if we set off every explosive device in existence, burned every forest, and set every oil well on fire, in time (speaking 100 of thousands of years) the balance would come back, and life would again thrive on the planet. Man just doesn't have the technology to destroy all life or upset the balance such that the earth wouldn't recover. The only thing we could destroy is a large number of species, including our own.

dmc: The point is that these disasters are getting worse and worse, and no place is safe. From increasingly sever hurricanes in the Southern US, to increasingly more devastating Earthquakes around the world, these disasters grow steadily worse. Deadly epidemics are striking the "civilized world." Working from the premise that there will be a point where the world will end, the further we progress, the closer we get to that point...

I think the question should be more like: How long will humankind last :p

Anybody here who claims to have noticed changes in the earth's climate is deluding themselves. I guess I'm pretty delusional :eek:

Topic: How long the earth would last? Now! ... uhhhhhhh ... now!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOW!!! ... (damn :mad: )

The Earth will be around for a long time but the world as we know it may (and probably will) drastically change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1749389.stm

Looks like there may be no finite limit as astronomer (at least some of them) believe it it may survive the suns death in around about 7.5 Billion years. The new figures from a British team predict it will be too hot for life in about 5.7 billion years time.

Alternative figures from Pensylvania predict the boiling of the oceans in about 1 billion years time.

Either way, I'm glad to say that I won't be around to see it.

Forget the Earth; Mars is in serious climate trouble!! The ice caps are melting and there are huge dust storms!! Off-season snowfall! Is it the dreaded Global Warming?! What have the Martians been doing to ruin their world?! They better shape up and become more ecologically minded before it's too late! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

The point is that these disasters are getting worse and worse,False. (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/disaster.html)

and no place is safe.True.

Sorry, Gnarff, but your anecdotal opinion doesn't sway me in the least. Show me some historical data that supports your point if you want to convince me (or don't, it's not that important).

I have it on good authority that the world is going to end on June 6th of next year.

The Mayan calendar ends somewhere around 12/12/12, IIRC. End of the world, anyone?

*Sigh*. When I said world, i meant humankind. We won't last long, because of all the things we are doing (see my above post).
Eventually, once we kill each other off because we can't breathe, Mother Earth will kick herself back into gear, and fix everything. But by that time, we won't have any fossil fuels (let me remind you that they do not replenish), and we will have populated every square inch of the world, exluding oceans.
Thus, there will be no trees, which means no oxygen. Humans are screwing themselves over, and are doing nothing to stop themselves.

Greed and lack of caring (as i said before) will ruin us all.

[ October 13, 2005, 05:58: Message edited by: Saber ]

You know, I'm almost motivated enough to put out the burning pile of aerosol cans in the backyard...

Nah, maybe tomorrow.

Actually, BA (or was that ArtEchoke?), I'm noticing that there is an increacing frequency of the disasters listed the closer we get to today, and there was no reference to the recent Earthquake in Pakistan.

dmc: If you choose not to believe, that is your decision, but take warning that noplace is safe, and that personal preparation is necessary for such situations.

Just wait for the bird flu pandemic - should it ever materialize.
I believe the most deaths casued by natural disaster was the influenza pandemic in 1918, which has estimates ranging between 25 and 100 million dead worldwide. Makes any of the recent events look small fry.

@Gnarlfflinger

You can just call me BArtechoke if you want.

I believe what you are noticing on the list is the increasing reporting and documentation of disasters, and as you pointed out yourself, the list is by no means complete.

My point was more directed toward the body count involved, and the suggestion you made that as time moves on the disasters get worse. The data seems to indicate the opposite.

Even if you combine the death toll of all of this years disasters (including the Pakistan earthquake), it pales in comparison to many of the disasters listed for a single event (look at virtually any earthquake that's happened in China...), yet armageddon has not arrived.

Also history seems to show that as we get more advanced the preparation and response for these disasters gets better. Look at the flue pandemic from 1918 - (25-100 million dead!), then there was another one in 1957 (4 million dead, not great, but big improvement) then another in 1968 - 750 thousand worldwide, dramatic difference, and this is with intercontinental travel becoming more and more common, which enables the disease to spread exponentially faster. Yet the impact was much less severe.

Take into consideration that the world population is on the rise, so the smaller death tolls are even smaller, relatively speaking, to their historical counterparts.

Its tempting to say that the world is falling apart around you when you can simultaneously see disasters and wars in umpteen different countries at the same time on CNN, but its simply not the case. They've always been there, the new thing is the TV.

Wow.
Ok, the Mayan's had 3 calenders because they thought that if their calender ever ended, teh world would end, so they made three that cycle so that no more than 2 ever end at the same time. And even then they made hundreds of human sacrifices to 'stave off the end'.
Global warming is a load of crap. The Earth cycles from cold to warm to cold on about a 50 year cycle. Sure 20 years ago things were cooler, but 50 years ago they were just the same and 70 years ago things were warmer. The global trend is steady. Also, CO2 is not building up in our atmosphere because the more CO2 there is, the larger the plants get and the faster they convert it back to O2. Finally, the earth releases more greenhouse gasses every year or two through volcanic erruptions and the like than all of human interferance in all of human history. And large events like Mt. St. Helens released even more than that. If global warming or cooling or anything were to occur, it would have happened a long time ago. The earth is not nearly as delicate as we pretend it is. Even invasive species we spread don't destroy the ecosystem, they just change it.

Thus, there will be no trees, which means no oxygen. Combinded, all the plants on all the land on this planet only produce a small % of our O2. The oceans produce the vast majority of the oxygen. In fact, if you look into it, you will find that many plants actually use almost as much 02 as they release (when there is no light many plants switch to using O2 instead of CO2 and will actually produce CO2).

It's not like the oceans are doing that well either though. I won't go predicting something that's almost impossible to predict for all I know ten years from now a meteor the size of jupiter will smash into us and destroy every trace of our planet. One thing is certain though that pollution level need to be lowered at some point and the consumption of natural resources too and I think it's important that we start taking small steps towards change allready so that the entire world economy will not crash when oil prices rise through the roof.

If global warming or cooling or anything were to occur, it would have happened a long time ago Ever heard of the ice age? That screams global cooling. And another Ice Age is inevitable. Maybe not tomorrow, but eventually.

Also, CO2 is not building up in our atmosphere because the more CO2 there is, the larger the plants get and the faster they convert it back to O2. Besides the fact that much of our O2 is made in the ocean (which was already stated), the CO2 is building up in the upper layers of the atmosphere (I believe...). No plants up there.


And even if we aren't creating global warming/cooling, we are using up natural resources far too quickly. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Fresh water (only three percent of all the water on this planet is fresh)is not unlimited, and to desalinize ocean water takes great amounts of energy.

Yes, water will last longer than fossil fuels, but still, we need to start planning for the future. We need new forms of electricity. Instead of wasting coal and oil for electricity, use wind, hydroelectric, and solar.) It saves tons of fossil fuels which can be used for other things, like heating and fuel for vehicles.

Speaking of vehicles, we need to ban all SUVs, because not only are they used to drive down the highway instead of offroad, like they are supposed to (rarely does anyone use SUVs for that), but they waste tons of fuel. More hybrids (or completely hydrogen/solar/wind power cars), and less gas guzzlers.

:rolleyes: You guys.... Can't you just get on with life, and not worry about something as ridiculous as the world coming to an end? If you want to talk about scientific stuff, sure, why not, but Guys like Gnarff really ought to keep their silly religious beliefs to themselves, to be honest.

Can't you just get on with life, and not worry about something as ridiculous as the world coming to an end? What makes you think we can't do both? The official list of stuff I'm worried about numbers in the triple digits (though just barely) and I'm still living two people's worth of lives. Now if only I weren't so tired all the time...

Of course, just because I worry about something like the end of the world doesn't mean that I delude myself into thinking I can do anything about it aside from "don't hasten it".

The thing is, you don't need to worry about it, because the world isn't going to end any time soon. It's just a stupid unnecessary thing to have stuck in the back of your mind.

Not worried about the world ending, just us losing petroleum when I am middle-aged. Well, I guess I'm not worried too much, I'm just pissed at people who buy SUVs to drive in suburbia. I would list a bunch of reasons, but, I already did, and I don't want to repeat myself.

But yes, I am living my life. Just something that ticks me off, that's all...

Saber,

I am really not trying to pick on you, but you keep posting statements that just aren't rooted in reality. There are more known oil reserves out there now then there were in the 1970's, or any time in history for that matter. Further, oil is not going to disappear like a shut off tap. There are many forms of geology in which oil is trapped, and even "tapped out" oil wells have more oil in them than was taken out (it is too expensive to pump more than 1/2 of the oil out of most oil wells). We are still harvesting "easy" sources of oil. As these easy sources start to disappear we will move to more difficult processes (drilling deeper, pumping further, and extraction from shale), and the prices will start to rise as the costs go up. As this happens consumers will demand cheaper energy sources, and more expensive options (hydrogen and ethanol for examples) will become more cost effective. Eventually oil will become a scarce enough resource that it will only be used for "designer" goods (expensive items that only the rich can afford), but we really won't care as we will have moved on to alternatives.

Oh, i know that there are more ways, as we (my school) has been given extensive lectures by many proffessionals, but still, people need to cut back, especially in America. I am not sure of the exact figures, but we use far more of our share of oil in the world (our percent of the population, i'm not sure, but i think it is something like 3 or 4 percent of the world is using over 50% of the oil in the world. Not very proportional).

But the fact is that most people don't care. They won't notice we are out of oil until just before we run out, in which case they'll start trying to find ways of alternate power, which might be too late.

Anyways, I don't want to start another argument (too many already, although not on this matter), so I'll leave it at that.

ArtEChoke: My point is that there are more of these disasters happenning these days, and they come more frequently. Before such major destruction was rare, but now you see Indonesia, New Orleans and now Pakistan all wiped out within 12 months.

Saervok: To be honest, I can't believe how many people think that they can open fire and tee off on religion because they think it's bull****. Can't you people keep your hatred or contempt for religion to yourself or do you wish to continue to look more foolish than you claim I am...

Saber: I have some ideas on why North America consumes proportionately more oil than other nations, but that's widely off topic...

@ Darkwolf

If we assumed the atmosphere was not a limitless free dump site for waste, would that drive the cost of fossil fuels to the economic tipping point more quickly? Does circumspection not lend a little forceful economic guidance some credence?

Saber:

Using population to determine what is fair for consumption is not a fair or equitable way to divvy out anything. Different populations have different needs. Do you think it is unfair that those who live near the equator do not consume nearly as much wool as those who live above the tropics?

LNT,

We already have such charges in the US. People who drive cars that guzzle gasoline pay a tax for their cars (gas guzzler tax), and those who consume more gasoline pay more taxes as they consume more. If you are asking if raising taxes on gasoline, or cars that consume it would provide alternative fuels a competitive advantage, I would have to say yes. However the effects of such actions to the overall economy and political climate will prevent such action from taking place unless there is an event that changes the paradigm of the general population.

I wonder if some of the alternative fuels research hasn't suffered because the funding was held back to avoid irking the petroleum industry...

Doubtful for the reason you stated, but certainly because alternative fuels research could be seen as not worth the expenditure at the time. There's only so much money to go around and always too many people wanting a piece of the pie.

Heard (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/factclimate.php) about this?

I am worried, because: last year me and my girfriend almost went to a trip to Oceania, fortunatelly we didn't, the tsunami would kill us; a month ago the plane my sister in law took was lifted 20 metres on the air by a kind of typhoon and droped suddenly causing lots injuries to people, those kind of typhoons never happened before; 4 days ago a hurricane born in the area that born Katrina and others came to Portugal - Spain, never before a hurricane came this way, they always go to down-USA, thanksfuly it became a tropical storm upon touchdown south Spain, so we have rain for 4 straight days; cities around Barcelona and under the Pirineos are suffering floods, 3 cars and 6 people were dragged suddenly by water in a city street killing 10 people, just 20 km from where I live; do you remember New Orleands viewed from the air after the flood?, we have 6 cities here like that, streets like Venecia, people dragged at night by current water with their own houses; former Barcelona coach, friend of us, went to a trip to Japan, he was in one of the worst earthquakes there, thanks that Japan is one of the most prepared countries against earthquakes; of course I am worried, cold is colder as usual in these days, by october never snowed before, this year those cities had 1 mt of snow.
Of course I am worried, I might be in a place where it supposed to be safe, sleepeing, but get dragged by a flood, where yesterday was dry, like happened to 12 people in the last 2 days.

That article is sad and discouraging :( , poor polar bears.

I suggest everyone read it, for that is proof that we are slowly destroying the climate.

If you had read the article, I'm not sure why you would say such a thing. A quote from the article:
While there is no consensus on whether human activity is the most significant factor, the Arctic has in fact been warming, whatever the cause. Now, I'm not saying we are or are not a significant factor, just that there is no proof that we are. Some scientists think so, others don't; the climate is a very complicated system.

Alrighty, sorry, i guess it might not have been a justified statement, I just thought that when they mentioned increased CO2 and greenhouse gases, they meant that it was the fault of humans.

But still, it is unfortunate.

Ok, the pollution effects of mankind, all told so far, are so minimal compared to the Earth that they only make an impact on the local scale, see Mexico City. The global environment, not only can take vastly larger amounts than what we put in, but has mechanisms to recover faster than we are putting it in, especially the ocean. You know those bacteria that break up toxic waste into non-toxic compounds, we got most of them from oceanic vents.
The earth cycles and processes more water every year than humanity could ever use. There is not enough room on the surface of the earth for that many humans.
The global climate has only been measured to any great extent for the past few decades, not nearly enough to make long term projections off of.
How do we know what temperatures the arctic experienced 400 years ago? Ice is not good for tracking temperature changes over long periods of time and the melting that occurs every summer corrupts the temerature data for any surviving ice. Many of these sites/claims use data from the past 20 years and extrapolate. We now know that the earth goes through a ~50 year temperature cycle of rise and fall. We are nearing the end of a rise, so global temperatures should start falling in the next 10 or so years. There are probably many other, longer cycles that the earth's environment goes through, but we don't have enough accurate data to predict them yet.
Finally, the processes that influence the earth's temperature are increadibly complex. You have the average and specific reflectivity of the surface, the reflectivity and commonality of clouds, the rate that the atmosphere retains heat, the rate that the Sun puts it out, the rate that the earth looses heat, and many others. Most of these are either directly or indirectly dependant on the current temperature of the earth. The only reliable way to significantly change the earth's temp is to change it's distance from the Sun, or change how much the Sun puts out. Both of these are beyond our capabilities at this point.

many of these catastrophies are a necessity of nature, a hurricane is made to bring heat from one place to another. so it is a necessity of nature to do these things, more oftenly because of polution global warming and so on...

It's amazing how people can know so much aboutaone thing and not so much about another. Balle is absolutely right that hurricanes bring heat, among other things, from one place to another, and that this is part of a natural cycle, one of many that serve this purpose. She? is, however, wrong about the polution issue, or at least as far as we know. There is no evidence to even suggest that polution may contribute to hurricanes. Quite the reverse, actually. The leading eco-biased theory is that polution causes local heat to rise. This, then, would mean that North America should have more heat than usual, and a larger increase than the African coast, so the number of hurricanes would decrease, or, at least, they would be less likely to hit us. Also, the greatest change would have been seen in the 80's and 90's, not now. The More You Know...

you're wrong about the she, in fact you could'nt be any more wrong about that.

i just surfed a bit on the internet the other day, as i do everyday, and saw something about hurrcanes moving heat, and i just assumed that Heat=hurricanes and pollution=holes in the ozon layer=heat, so hurricanes would hit to extract the heat from the given place, but i guess i was wrong.

Still, global warming or no, I think 3 of the last 5 years are the hottest overall since we've started to measure temperature worldwide. It might be part of a natural cycle or global warming - we should be careful either way.

Actually, there were a few in the 40's and 50's that were hotter, but not by much.

Balli: thanks for the clarification, it was just a guess. Internet sources can be good, but don't trust everything you see. I haven't seen the pollution=holes thing in years, mainly because the largest 'hole' actually only a minor thinning in the ozone, is over antarctica and there's no pollution in antarctica. The evidence suggests that, while certain chemicals do destroy ozone, it is regenerated plenty fast, and we've stopped using the vast majority of those chemicals. If you're really curious about the latest, look for college and university sites, as well as NASA or NOAA. These are the people doing the latest research. Also be wary of anyone that's wholely one-sided. They haven't neccessarily biased their data, but they may well have.

I think there are two separate issues here to consider. The answer to the question of "Is the current temperature seen around the planet generally warmer now that it has been in recent memory?" is unequivocally yes. In fact, 2005 is shaping up to be the hottest year ever recorded. The way they rate global temperatures is they take temperature readings at diverse sites (I think something like 600-something) from around the world and average them. Based on data calculated from 30 September - the latest available info - no year has been hotter than 2005 up through this point.

There is a second question though, to which we don't have an answer. That question would be: "Are these changes largely influenced by human actions?" We simply don't know. We don't know if pollution, global warming, etc., is a man-made crisis or a normal change in climate. "Global Warming" is a fact if you only mean the earth is warmer today than it used to be. However, if you define "Global Warming" as a CO2-driven event caused predominantly by burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels, well the jury is still out.

I for one was surprised to learn that we are presently living in an ice age. Who would have thought. The polar caps are covered in ice; according to scientific definition that qualifies our present as ice age. Puts the global warming in a different light for me.

That doesnt mean I am advocating squandering our resources or poisoning our world.

How do you define recent memory? Our records for most of the world for any more than a few dozen years ago are spotty at best, but in the few areas that we have good, long, reliable records we see that this year is only the 3rd hottest at best and doesn't even make top 10 in some areas. All in all, the jury is still out. Though don't be confused, I love fuel cells and completely support their development as a replacement for hydrocarbons, which is needed due to the local effects alone.

However, if you define "Global Warming" as a CO2-driven event caused predominantly by burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels, well the jury is still out. Well, the jury is still out if you ignore the majority of scientific evidence (can this prove without a doubt that recent warming is due to CO2? No. However, there is compelling evidence)

Or, alternately, if you give the same weight to oil-company sponsored think-tank propaganda as to reputable science studies.

Actually, the reputable scientific evidence suggests that human activity has not made a serious impact on the global environment. The major players in this arena are seismic and volcanic events, gas and hot springs, and plankton in the ocean.
Human CO2 pollusion, deforestation, and slash-and-burn tactics add up to little more than a guppy in the ocean.

As luck would have it, there was an article about the effects of global warming in NYT yesterday No Escape: Thaw Gains Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/science/earth/25arctic.html)

Since it will disappear soon beyound the firewall, here are some paragraphs
In 1969 Roy Koerner, a Canadian government glaciologist, was one of four men (and 36 dogs) who completed the first surface crossing of the Arctic Ocean, from Alaska through the North Pole to Norway.

Now, he said, such a trek would be impossible: there is just not enough ice. In September, the area covered by sea ice reached a record low. "I look on it as a different world," Dr. Koerner said. "I recently reviewed a proposal by one guy to go across by kayak."

At age 73, Dr. Koerner, known as Fritz, still regularly hikes high on the ancient glaciers abutting the warming ocean to extract cores showing past climate trends. And every one, he said, indicates that the Arctic warming under way over the last century is different from that seen in past warm eras.

Many scientists say it has taken a long time for them to accept that global warming, partly the result of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, could shrink the Arctic's summer cloak of ice.

But many of those same scientists have concluded that the momentum behind human-caused warming, combined with the region's tendency to amplify change, has put the familiar Arctic past the point of no return.

The particularly sharp warming and melting in the last few decades is thought by many experts to result from a mix of human and natural causes. But a number of recent computer simulations of global climate run by half a dozen research centers around the world show that in the future human influence will dominate.

Even with just modest growth in emissions of the greenhouse gases, almost all of the summer sea ice is likely to disappear by late in the century. Some of the simulations, including those run on an advanced model at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., show much of the summer ice disappearing by 2050, said Marika Holland, a scientist there who is working on the sea-ice portion of that model.

Of the various simulations, all done for an international scientific report on climate trends to be issued in 2007, the only ones that retain much summer sea ice in the Arctic by 2100 are those that assume global greenhouse-gas emissions are held constant at rates measured in 2000 - something that only five years later is already impossible.

[...]

In the virtual Arctic of computer simulations, thousands of lines of computer code mimic how ice, oceans and the atmosphere interact and are components of larger global models of earth's climate and oceans.

The models are the only way to test how the planet may react to various human actions. Because there is only one earth, there are no other options for such studies, given that the real earth is already well along in an unintended experiment - the rapid buildup of long-lived greenhouse gases.

Those who work in that realm have steadily improved their simulations. A decade ago, for instance, most depicted sea ice just as static reflective slabs, and almost all now replicate how ice is tugged by wind and ocean currents, Dr. Holland said.

The inevitability of summer ice retreats, she and other Arctic experts say, is a result of the nature of the climate system, which is something like a heavy flywheel. Once started, flywheels tend to keep going. Within a few decades, say many scientists focused on the region, the insulating power of greenhouse gases will dominate natural climate fluctuations, possibly for centuries.
Now, who would be those reputable scientists you mentioned, NOG?

Interesting, I hadn't seen this before, but trying to state global trends from local data is absolute folly, more or less regardless of how long you have data. Even trying to predict global trends from global data over the 50-70 years we have reliable global data is absolute folly, as any geologist will tell you. There are so many factors on so many levels of complexity that affect global temperature, many of which we don't understand/can't predict, that those who claim them are working on little more than guess work.
Allow me to elaborate:
Everyone knows that the sun heats the earth on the day side. Many people know that the earth radiates heat on the night side, cooling it. These are the two largest forces in global temperature. Some people know that how much heat is radiated on the night side is dependant on the current global temperature. In other words, it is a stable equilibrium.
Most people do not know how complex the equations governing this radiation of heat really are. The ground temperature, closeness of the surface to a black body, and conductivity and temperature of the air below the cloud layer are all proportional to heat loss. The cloud cover, reflectivity of clouds and the air below the cloud layer are all inversly proportional. On a completely seperate term, the temperature, conductivity, and reflectivity of the air above cloud level are considered.
This is just how current temperature affects heat loss. On top of that, you have the heat from the sun, how much is reflected from the day side, volcanic activity, seismic activity, conduction from the core, electric activity, geo-magnetic field variations, solar flares, the reflectiveness of the moon, cosmic radiation, and about a million smaller terms we're still learning about. Many of these, especially the sun, geomagnetic variations, volcanic, and seismic influences cycle. We know of short-term (0-100 year) cycles for most of these and we suspect long term(1000-100M year) cycles for all of them. Some cycles are drastic, some are minor, many overlap each other forming an apparently chaotic sequence of variations.

November 7th, today, I was outside without a jacket or sweater. Don't think global warming has anything to do with the freaky weather we are having. It is too extreme. Don't know what is causing it and don't like it. The only good thing is won't pay much for heating fuel.

My understanding is that this type of weather goes by the name of 'indian summer' in the North East. That is, a couple of weeks of warm weather in November. It's pretty nice, actually :) Maybe you people near NYCity do not get this very often, but in upstate NY, we do :)

I don't think this has anything to do with global warming, is just the way the weather is around here. On the other hand, it ended with quite a storm yesterday (loss of power, hail in places). And I'am sure we'll have to spend plenty for heating this winter.

NOG: nobody is saying that predicting climate is simple. However, it is not impossible. And you are right that "most people do not know [...]" -add your preffered piece of knowledge here. However, the people who 'know' the most about weather are of opinion that human-produced CO2 has a big impact on the climate.

But by that time, we won't have any fossil fuels (let me remind you that they do not replenish), Um actually they do, it just takes about 100 million years to compress the organic matter into petroleum. Probably doesn't help with your problem of "there won't be any oil when I'm middle aged." ;)

But I am somewhat heartened to think that someday, some species that's the dominant form of life on terra at that point will be putting us in their gas tanks! :lol:

We're gonna die, guys. Face it and stop *****ing around. ;)

I think the Earth will last another 7 or 8 billion years, before the Sun turns into a red giant and swallows it up.

How long the human race will be around is quite a different matter...

But by that time, we won't have any fossil fuels (let me remind you that they do not replenish)Um actually they do, it just takes about 100 million years to compress the organic matter into petroleum.You are right there, but one must realise when saying that that the world we know today is vastly different to the world that existed 100 million years ago when these natural fuel sources were laid. The major differnce results from the oxygen levels in our atmosphere. Back then, according to most currently held theories, we had up to 30% extra oxygen in our atmosphere. This lead to a greater varity of life - particularly in size. Ever wondered why the dianosaurse were so large? Well, plants were the same. With the greater masses of life, and also a wetter world (yes, we still are in an ice age), it was ideal for creating fossil fuels. Generalising here, but there were greater swamps, due to the smaller icecaps, and a greater quantity of life. Perfect ingrediance for petrol, gases and th elikes. We do not currently have the same conditions here. Give it 100 million years, or what ever it takes, and you will not see a great replenishment of oil.

Combinded, all the plants on all the land on this planet only produce a small % of our O2. The oceans produce the vast majority of the oxygen.Another thing mentioned above that is completely correct. But another thing that is only half explained, IMO. Yes, with the earth heating up, if all the land plants die, we still will have our oceans to produce the oxygen. BUT, and this is a big but, that is assuming all other conditions remain the same. With the heating of the atmosphere we will, without a doubt, end up seeing the melting of the polar icecaps. The amount of salt and other minerals stored in there is enough to drastically alter the eco-systems present in the oceans, which for all we know may kill off the majority of the oceanic life. Although it's bound to replenish after time - the joys of evolution ;)


I would never argue that the heating of the world is not a natural process. Infact, I would readily argue the fact that it is. What I do believe though is that humans are doing nothing at all to help slow down the progress.

I guess in many ways earth is like a countries economy. You have your boom periods and your depressions (hot periods and cold periods). A standard government though, atleast all the ones I've ever looked much at, enforces counter-cyclical policies to try and reduce the effects of this cycle. They would be foolish to throw petrol on a booming economy, in a manner of speaking. IMO, same applies for our planet. Just because we are heating up, it doesn't give us an excuse, nor a right, to speed up this process. It's suicide - very long term suicide, but suicide none the less.


[Edited] Another thing that I don' tthink has been pointed out yet is more... micro (at a lack for a better word) climate changes. When I say localised, I'm talking about time wise, not geography wise. Even though the earth is constantly warming up and cooling down over vast periods of time, while this cycle is occuring a smaller cycle is underway as well. The different algei levels in the Pacific Ocean, for example, has massive effects on the entire plants weather system. The past few years waether extremities could, for all I know, just be a result of an extreme case of El Nino, or something similar.

ArtEChoke: My point is that there are more of these disasters happenning these days, and they come more frequently. Before such major destruction was rare, but now you see Indonesia, New Orleans and now Pakistan all wiped out within 12 months.Not true. The disasters have been no worse lately than they have been at any other point in history.

November 7th, today, I was outside without a jacket or sweater. Don't think global warming has anything to do with the freaky weather we are having. It is too extreme. Don't know what is causing it and don't like it. The only good thing is won't pay much for heating fuel. And a month ago, we had snow!

Montresor:
Last I heard, the Sun will only last another 4.5 billion years before going nova. Of course, I'm no expert on the topic, so if anyone has better information, please post.

The CO2 from petrolium may easily be replaced with CO2 from ethanol and the like, whatever effect it has. Support your local fuel cell!

Rastor:
It is very hard to say that disasters are better/worse than they have been in the past because:
1.) global communications means you hear about every major disaster in the world, where as even 50 years ago, you would only hear about a fraction of them
2.) the globe is mor populated, so disasters that kill millions today may have only killed 100 a century ago, if that's all that was there
3.) one of the most common estimates of the damage of a storm is the cost to fix it. I'm not even going to go into all the ways that can change in just a few years.

Here in Virginia, we're having summer weather, but last year at the same time, the cities were shutting down for snow!

The world is going to skirt disaster recurrently during "Sweeps Week" of each year until the end of the Mayan calendar. Furthermore, it can be shown that the global temperature has increased regularly ever since Caesar created July.

BUT OFCOARSE!!! The adition of a whole month would require extra heat to fall on the Earth in that time! The shift would have momentum and thus overcompensate! It's all Caesar's fault! :spin: -(I just had to use this one)

To me, the issue is how much faith do we have in the human race as a whole? As was mentioned before, even if we detonated every single nuke ever created after lighting off every single deposit of fossil fuels, we still couldn't destroy the earth -- we could seriously rearrange the topography, and I'm not sure if any life would survive, but the hunk o' rock would still be here until the sun swallows it in however many billion years (after the first million, to me, it kind of becomes a moot point.)

So, the question is are we as a race bright enough to alter our behaviour before we remove ourselves from the equation? I think we are. No one knows more than me how stunningly stupid and shortsighted people can be (for those who don't know or remember me, I teach high school ;) ) but in the end I have faith that humanity will take the appropriate steps to avoid our complete annihilation. I'll hold forth on global warming in a later post, I'm too tired now.

At the height of the cold war, the Russians had enough nukes to destroy all life on earth 4.5 times. The US had enough to do it 12 times. If these were all fired from the exactly right spot, at the exactly right time, into space, it could possibly change the earth's orbital speed noticably. Whether or not it could plunge the earth into the sun, I don't really know, but I doubt it.

A question about possible alternate fuels: Coul alcohol be used?
Just an idea that me and my friends have been wondering. :rolleyes:

Alcohol based fuels have been toyed around with for a while now, and there is some promise. They don't deliver as much energy per liter, so few people have jumped at the idea, but it is a serious alternative. Some deisel fuels are now cut with alcohol to reduce cost and emissions. The other problem is that alcohol fuels still produce CO2 gas, which so many people complain about. The evidence for it's destructive effects is tenative at best, but a lot of people worry about it.

i think everything is building up to a super volcano similar to the one which erupted under the sea 75,000 years ago near cyprus, the earthquakes suggest abnormal plate movements and the presence of more and more tidal quakes situated in the pacific ocean suggest that is where it will be. the weather effects that we have seen are probably related to the tsunami.

Maybe it will be that Yellowstone Park supervolcano that Bill Bryson keeps going on about. Boom!

Actually, there are 3 or 4 supervolcanos around the world, including Yellowstone, that are overdue. Of course, its 1,000 or so years in 150,000 or so year cycles that is not very precise, so 'overdue' doesn't really mean much.

so, what do you guys atcually think of the thought about the super volvano? do you think its a possibility? or am i way out?

Well, of course it's possible...

How probable a super volcano erupting might be, I bet real few can hazard any guesses.

The danger on greenhouse gases is their cumulative effect. A positive feedback loop might be going on; the permafrost in Siberia and Alaska is melting rapidly. This will release huge amounts of CO2, methane and other swamp gases into the atmosphere.

If ocean water warms up 10 degrees celsius (which is quite a lot in fact), the methane hydrate ice in the ocean floors will become gas which will release into the atmosphere eventually. Methane is more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, as you might know already.

One certain indicator of global warming is that certain species, not previously able to live near the Arctic circle has now moved here. Diseases and parasites not previously able to withstand the colder climate will come sooner or later. The spreading of malaria to colder climates, if that should happen, would be a very definite sign of global warming indeed.

And what if we humans aren't the ones causing the global warming? Can we take the risk of not doing anything, while we still might have a chance? Go tell that global warming isn't happening to inhabitants of those island states that are sinking below the rising ocean.

And if indeed global warming would not be happening, local warming is. The CO2 and other atmosphere impurities heat up the air and cause one mean turbulence. Storms and increased lightning activity near major cities has been noted and studied. Smog is not a minor factor on increased allergies and respiratory illnesses. If we're not destroying the earth, some of us are doing great job ruining each others lives.

Supervolcanos are not a theory, there's one under Yellowstone, which is why it is so thermaly active.
And why is everyone so worried over the ice cap? Climates throughout Europe and Asia are still not as warm as they were only 1000 years ago. The global climate changes, it has before and it will again. Also remember that the more the Earth is covered in water, the more light is reflected away, so the Earth will cool faster. We're in a rather stable equilibrium, here. It would take something on the scale of an orbital change to kick us out of it.

Also remember that the more the Earth is covered in water, the more light is reflected away, so the Earth will cool faster. I have to comment on this argument, since it is too funny to pass up. You do realize that 70% of Earth surface is covered by water, right? So 1% increase in this quantity would correspond to 3 percent decrease in land (which now obviously is under water). And guess what what portions of land will be submerged: coastal areas (obviously) which are one of the most populated regions of the world.

Let's not even mention that ice reflects better than water, so if ice will melt and transform into water, I don't think the overall effect would be of cooling.

Climates throughout Europe and Asia are still not as warm as they were only 1000 years ago. This doesn't seem to be true either. It would be helpful if you'd give some links to supporting evidence... Lacking this, a two minutes search on Google brings up the following page The "Medieval Warm Period" (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html) (from the National Oceanic and Amospheric Administration web site). The relevant paragraph:

There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. For example, Mann et al. (1999) generated a 1,000 year Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (shown above) using data from multiple ice cores and tree ring records. This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000 (shown in yellow). (For complete scientific reference of this study, please click here. Link to Mann 1999 FTP Data.) There is more interesting stuff on that site.

There was a mini-ice age around the last turn of the millinium (1000 AD). Monks grew many crops in england beforehand that still won't grow there today because it is too cold. Note, this does not reflect a global trend.

Well, the British should enjoy their weather while they can, since if the Gulf Stream gets screwed, it's going to get a lot colder.

Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602579,00.html)

I wonder if such a thing should happen, would our fearless leaders acknowledge some measure of responsability.

we shoud enjoy it? do you know what temperature it is here now?

its 17:21 and there is a frozen puddle outside my house.