Global warming worse than predicted

[RedEarth]

Source: couriermail

REPORT by Australian scientists has warned that the world is warming faster than predicted by the United Nations' top climate change body. The report, prepared by Dr Graeme Pearman, former head of the CSIRO's atmospheric research unit, found temperatures and greenhouse pollution were rising faster than forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report, prepared for the Climate Institute, noted that the IPCC's recent Fourth Assessment Report used material published up to mid-2006, but many important new observations had been published since.

"These suggest that the IPCC assessment is underestimating the risks of adverse impacts due to increased warming during this century and that impacts previously considered to be at the upper end of likelihood are now more probable," the report reads. "Greenhouse emissions are rising faster than the worst-case IPCC scenarios."

The report found if current trends continue the world's temperature will rise approximately three degrees celsius by the end of this century, relative to pre-industrial temperatures - well above what are considered dangerous levels.
The IPCC reported the concentration of carbon dioxide had increased from a pre-industrial value of 280 parts per million to 379 ppm in 2005.



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22763986-952,00.html

---

.....another article dealing with Dr Graeme Pearman's comments.....

"They talk about climate change being on the radar. But it's not, it's right outside the window," Dr Pearman said.

"It's already happening. It's a story we didn't really want to hear and we don't have decades to respond."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22765560-2,00.html

[tanyev]

1. See? No one could have anticipated that.

[rodeodance]

2. when it hits them in the wallet ,they will wake up

[mark414]

32. but by then it will be too late

[toadzilla]

53. its already hitting them in the wallet, they're not waking up.

theyre blaming the wallet hit on other things....

[sam sarrha]

3. and the band plays on.... we do nothing... so big oil can profit,thru WH inaction

[Jack Bone]

4. Off to the greatest...#5 Rec!

Thanx for the story!:patriot:

[tekisui]

5. It is happening faster than expected.

Even faster than they expect now. We can't keep up with the estimates anymore.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Yeah sure. Exxon Mobile scientists said Global Warming is a fraud. Who to belive.....

[Clive2]

78. Follow the Money

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

but then again that can be said about a lot of groups other than Exxon.

[Kokonoe]

7. Please answer my stupid question (I'm really asking) .

Is the level of oxygen falling?

[Tab]

9. No

You've got plenty of oxygen.

What's happening is a sort of spiral effect. The greenhouse gases keep heat from radiating back into space, and they reflect down.

The polar caps are white (snow/ice) and if you recall high-school science you'll remember that white reflects heat and black absorbs heat. The ocean (no ice) appears black.

So what happens is, the caps melt. Therefore, not as much white to reflect back. Therefore, more black to absorb.

More black (of the seas) to absorb, the warmer the ocean gets. The warmer the ocean gets, the faster the ice melts. The faster the ice melts, the less white we have, and the more black ocean. The more black ocean, the even warmer it gets. You see where this is going.

[Kokonoe]

15. Thanks for the clarification but

I must add that I think there is a widespread belief that heat is reflected back to earth. I'm not a scientist, but heat is always radiated to space. It is the element carbon that is so heavy. When it heats up, it takes more than one night to cool off. Hence the next day is warmer. Don't say I'm right or wrong as it makes no difference to me(not youtab).

[DLnyc]

33. Yes, energy is always coming in, by way of mostly visible wavelength sunlight.

Heat is also always going out, some by visible wavelength reflected light and some by longer wavelength infra-red heat (the kind of energy you feel when your hands face a fire or a radiator). Things warm up or cool down depending on whether energy is coming in faster than it is going out, or going out faster than it is coming in. If you slightly slow the rate at which energy can escape, things start to heat up. This is where carbon dioxide comes into play.

Carbon dioxide (chemical symbol C02) is a transparent gas formed from carbon and oxygen. Our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, with a very small proportion of CO2. Specifically, the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere is currently .038%, i.e. .038 parts per hundred, i.e. 38 parts per hundred thousand, i.e. 380 parts per million. Although visible light, coming in from the sun, passes through CO2 with no problem, longer wave length (infra-red) radiant heat is absorbed to some extent by any CO2 in the atmosphere, thus slightly shifting the balance of incoming energy over outgoing energy.

As was predicted long ago, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 300 parts per million around the beginning of the industrial revolution, to around 380 parts per million now, has caused the "balance" temperature, where energy is coming in at the same rate it is going out, to rise slightly. That is, the earth is warming slightly. Since a warmer body radiates somewhat faster, we could hope that that would be the end of the story. But there are a few problems. For one, the amount of CO2 in the air is continuing to increase while politicians (especially those connected to the energy industy in the US) argue about whether reality should be ignored or not. More worrisome, though, are 'feedback' effects, like those referred to by a previous poster.

One form of feedback is the melting of ice and the decreased 'reflectivity' of the earth, as described in a previous post. Another form of feed back comes from the arctic tundra which is beginning to defrost, due to global warming. This tundra contains huge amounts of undecomposed vegatable matter. When that matter begins to warm up it starts decaying and gives off CO2 and/or methane (an even better blocker of infra-red heat energy). Thus, even a small amount of global warming (which we have already) can kick off a process of melting which can lead to more warming via various feedback effects and the process can start going faster and faster. Further, since the warming and increase in CO2 seem to be outpacing predictions, it is possible that the feedbacks are already having an effect.

Bottom line: to hell with the damn oil companies, it's way past time to CUT BACK CO2 EMMISIONS DRASTICALLY! (Undertaken already in most developed countries, but not the US)

Hope this helps explain a little.

[Andy Canuck]

57. The level of oxygen isn't falling but

the level of CO2 is rising.

[DCKit]

10. Yeah, C + O2 =CO2

But we're talking at a rise of 100 parts per MILLION. So far, it's not even noticeable.

You can start breathing again.

[eppur_se_muova]

74. Natural CO2 levels are very low; 100 ppm increase is DRASTIC.

http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

[StClone]

52. No it's increasing too

As plants thrive on higher CO2 levels available they release O2.

[eppur_se_muova]

75. No. O2 makes up about 20% of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is under 0.04%.

That's why it's so much easier for human activity to change CO2 (or methane) levels; they're so low -- almost zero -- to begin with. Changing Earth's O2 levels would take >500 times as much effort.

[Tab]

8. Let's stop arguing about why

I believe, and most here probably believe, that it's man-made, because in 100 years it's changed more than in the last thousands, but for those who say "oh, the cause is still disputed", it DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER. What matters is that it's happening. Whether it's us, or the squirrels and the pandas DOESN'T MATTER - it's happening and we need to fix it.

[Der Blaue Engel]

12. The problem is that if we don't acknowledge the ways in which we're contributing to it

how can we fix it? If you and I say, "Fossil fuel consumption is contributing to Global Warming," and the koolaid drinkers insist that it isn't, how can we effect the change that is necessary (i.e., decrease dependence on fossil fuels)?

[onethatcares]

14. it's not only fossil fuel consumption.

it's the de forestation of the earth, the paving over of green space,gaddamn ice bridges carrying trucks to the artic, everything we've managed to do in a short span, industrial revolution to today, has had an effect on the planet. I keep trying to maintain a good outlook but personally, I think we're farked. I have no more than 50 yrs left on this place, I worry about my grandkids.

[Der Blaue Engel]

17. Absolutely

That was just one example. I think we can slow things down a bit, maybe, IF we undertake a massive effort and get the whole world on board. (Yeah, I know.) :(

[Tab]

27. What I meant was

some people aren't going to acknowledge it come hell or high water (and we may be seeing both soon). Regardless, instead of bickering about WHY, acknowledge that it IS happening, and we contribute. Take the WHY off the table and (in theory) we can talk about reducing it.

That's in theory.

I know that in reality it won't happen.

[Der Blaue Engel]

35. But like you said, some people deny that we're having an affect

So they don't believe they have a contribution to reduce.

For those nitwits, the fact that it's happening is neither here nor there and it certainly isn't "their problem." (It's probably God's will, and Armageddon's a'comin', Hallelujah!) I don't know what to do with those people, but telling them that the "why" is irrelevant won't encourage them to make any changes. Instead, I think we need to dismiss their nonsense and bring more attention to the scientifically demonstrated causes, loudly and repeatedly.

[mallard]

67. That's it

There are just too many people in this world and that has to change, too, IMO.

Population control was a big starting point for debate in 1975 but hardly is anymore these days (when the predicted effects are really kicking in).

[defendandprotect]

43. However, it does matter that we all understand this is due to burning fossil fuels ----

and if there is to be any attempt to cope, we have to stop burning fossil fuels ---
In fact, let's immediately nationalize OIL --
why should our oil be in the hands of a few private families?


And, while they were lying about Global Warming -- they were also lying about Iraq ---
and this 5 year war which is bankrupting America -- as we turn into a third world nation.

The elites who gave you Global Warming will now give you inflation worthy of pre-Nazi Germany.

Let's turn it ALL around ---
Patriarchy is suicidal ---
so is "Manifest Destiny" --- it's religious license to exploit
and let's get rid of their patriarchal religions and return to true spirituality ---

[pscot]

11. The real tragedy lies in the fact that we could have done something

about it, but the Republicans in Congress didn't think it was real. Corporate profits were more important. The whole planet will be paying for their greed and stupidity.

[xchrom]

16. oh republick party people know it's real. -- it's that they

carry a message of deceit.

corporate interests before the interests of the people -- not really different than say universal healthcare.

recommend

[CrispyQ]

19. Just think if we had followed through with the policies that Carter started.

:cry:

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread,RedEarth.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Presto change-o!

Earth and Venus
:scared:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

20. Every month, I read another report that it's worse than predicted...

Does that mean it's worse than the predictions 5 years ago, or worse than the prediction last month?

Is the warming rate actually faster than their predictions can keep up with? If so, they need to spell that out for the numbfucks who still don't recognize there's a problem.

[Richard D]

22. I think . . .

. . . and it's intuitive and based on personal observations, that it's worse than what they are saying. Like a lot worse. Maybe even worse than that.

[lovuian]

21. I think its here and scientists don't know how to say

it but predictions of 2050 and 2100 are based on old and inaccurate models

[William Tannenbaum]

23. "Global Warming" is the greatest scientific hoax in the history of mankind

N/T

[gasperc]

25. the artic will be ice free in less than 20 years

will that be a hoax?

[mistertrickster]

26. Oh, Tannembaum, oh Tannembaum . . . say "buh bye" nt

[fascisthunter]

28. Your Claim is an Unforgivable and Dangerously Stupid Hoax

that in the end could have severe consequences on a global scale. I don't know whether you work for big oil, the RNC (America's Fascist Party) or are generally not too bright, but people like you need to have your heads checked.

[TrogL]

30. Which shows you're simply not paying attention

...or you're living someplace with no snow.

I'm 50-ish years old and I've seen climate change in my own lifetime that any other milennia would have taken centuries.

[krabigirl]

31. uhhhhhh..ok.

[hatrack]

34. Wow! It's not just the sheer power of your arguments - it's all the evidence you posted!

Overwhelming! Here, let me kneel down to your amazing genius. May I kiss your ass? Please?

[RedEarth]

36. You must be a Jim Inhofe disciple... or an Exxon employee

[bitchkitty]

39. Oh wow really? Such a relief.

William Tannenbaum has spoken!

[Barrett808]

42. Tombstone in 3...2...1... n/t

[truth2power]

48. And you know that, how, Tannenbaum?? Please tell us....

*sigh* See, folks? This is the quality of critical thinking that's out there. We're done!! :nuke:

[Zhade]

49. Fuck off, you stupid freeper nazi fuck!

NT!

[Ripley]

64. !!!

:dunce:

[yellowcanine]

69. Looks like a "drive-by" flame baiter, folks. And it worked.

[jpak]

70. Hello Senator Inhofe! Welcome to DU

:hi:

:rofl:

[eppur_se_muova]

76. Welcome to DU, Name Removed! nt

[RedSock]

90. thanks! i'm convinced (eom)

[CHIMO]

92. Tell These People

Or better yet prove it.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

[mistertrickster]

24. But . . . but . . .the CONs say that all our problems are just a lack of "personal responsibility."

In other words, "don't have sex, kids, f**k the environment for profit like we do."

[fascisthunter]

29. Today with Ideological Morons in Power and Their Insatiable Greed

I'm afraid there isn't much our country can do about it. It's actually the number one issue facing the human race as a whole, yet leaders twiddle their thumbs. The big polluters are still polluting and more than ever because of massive deregulation.

[bread_and_roses]

37. In the name of my grandchild, I curse the Profiteers and their stooge parrots

Like Servilla in "Rome," I curse them from eye to toe. Now, these corrupt, greedy poisoners of the earth are putting ads on the TV - beautifully made with their blood-profits - telling us how wonderfully green they are, how they are part of the solution - ARE the solution! While they buy our corrupt government with their campaign blood-money. I am quite sure they have some of their pet scientists at work scoping out the areas that will be most livable as the globe heats up, where they can displace the current population and live in guarded communities with serfs who by that time will be grateful for literal rather than metaphorical scraps from their tables. Think of pResident Puppet's buy in Paraguay(?).

As for their stooges among the populace, still preaching "hoax" and "liberal conspiracy," I pity them. I doubt that many of them will be among the elect. No doubt some of them are young enough that they will see their own children and grandchildren suffer the effects of their Capitalist Heros, the parasitical rich.

[gypsy11]

38. Well said. n/t

[defendandprotect]

46. What about making oil companies accountable now . . . . . . ????

What about nationalizing oil ---

Putting Electric Cars on our roads --- ?

We could replace every gas-guzzler in 5 years ---

Raise up a corporation and subsidize both ends --- mfg and purchase ---


See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

[cachukis]

40. Might I add for yucks, "deindustrialization"

Found this great analysis about energy consumption on the Oildrum.com website out of Australia/New Zealand.

When will fossil fuel industrial society end?

When oil costs $240-$1,500 a barrel for several years.

One says to me, "I wonder that you do not lay up money; you love to travel; you might take the cars and go to Fitchburg today and see the country." But I am wiser than that. I have learned that the swiftest traveller is he that goes afoot. I say to my friend, Suppose we try who will get there first. The distance is thirty miles; the fare ninety cents. That is almost a day's wages... Well, I start now on foot, and get there before night... You will in the meanwhile have earned your fare, and arrive there some time tomorrow, or possibly this evening... And so, if the railroad reached round the world, I think that I should keep ahead of you...

- Walden, Henry David Thoreau

What was true in 1845 when Thoreau wrote that is not true today in the developed West, but is still true in the Third World. Fuel was still expensive enough that a journey of a day's walk taken by mechanical means was more expensive than a day's labour. Resources were more expensive than labour; now in the West labour is more expensive than resources, while in the Third World labour is still very cheap. But will it always be so?


http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3228#more

[Orsino]

41. Worse than *admitted*. n/t

[defendandprotect]

44. Imagine . .. . many people have only woken up to this . . !!!!

There is at least a 50 year delay in Global Warming --- so right now, we're only
at 1957 ....

How many gas-guzzlers were put on the highway in those 50 years?

How much pollution, overpopulation to further compound this whole thing?

In order to respond we would have to replace every gas-guzzler on our highways with
ELECTRIC CARS --- over a five year period ---

Raise up a corporation to build them --- subsidize manufacture and purchase ---

Let's go ---

PS: National OIL ---

and let Iraq keep their oil ---
Iran, too ---

[theHandpuppet]

55. Wow -- it only took until post 44 for someone to mention overpopulation

The giganto elephant in the living room no one wants to discuss, even here on DU. Thanks for having the courage to mention it even in passing, despite the fact so many don't want to acknowledge that this as a major part of the problem. And until we are willing to at least be honest about human overpopulation, then there will be no solution to this crisis.

:hi:

[chervilant]

59. Yeah, buddy...

Overpopulation is the most underreported manifestation of our species' rampant hedonism...

I read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring when I was but a mere sprat. I determined right then and there that I would not bear children in a world teaming with unwanted children. If I ever wanted to be a mother, I could adopt. I'm 51 now, and I have witnessed all my life what Alice Miller calls our species' poisonous pedagogy, particularly in a society that purports to be child-centric! I remain amazed that so many of us reach adulthood without indulging in murderous rampages.

With regards to our species' lasting impact on earth: I find this concept laughable. We are only shitting in our own back yard, so to speak. When Gaia has had enough of us, She'll simply scrape us off her backside. Frankly, it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch...

[RedEarth]

68. Speaking of Gaia

I'm guessing you might have read the article in Rolling Stone ....
"The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock" .... he doesn't paint a very pretty picture of the coming years.

The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock
One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century
Jeff GoodellPosted Oct 17, 2007


At the age of eighty-eight, after four children and a long and respected career as one of the twentieth century's most influential scientists, James Lovelock has come to an unsettling conclusion: The human race is doomed. "I wish I could be more hopeful," he tells me one sunny morning as we walk through a park in Oslo, where he is giving a talk at a university. Lovelock is a small man, unfailingly polite, with white hair and round, owlish glasses. His step is jaunty, his mind lively, his manner anything but gloomy. In fact, the coming of the Four Horsemen -- war, famine, pestilence and death -- seems to perk him up. "It will be a dark time," Lovelock admits. "But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."

In Lovelock's view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. "The Chinese have nowhere to go but up into Siberia," Lovelock says. "How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia and China is probably inevitable." With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.

By the end of the century, according to Lovelock, global warming will cause temperate zones like North America and Europe to heat up by fourteen degrees Fahrenheit, nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sanctioned body that includes the world's top scientists. "Our future," Lovelock writes, "is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail." And switching to energy-efficient light bulbs won't save us. To Lovelock, cutting greenhouse-gas pollution won't make much difference at this point, and much of what passes for sustainable development is little more than a scam to profit off disaster. "Green," he tells me, only half-joking, "is the color of mold and corruption."



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

[Locrian]

63. overpopulation

yeah - its the 3rd rail of climate change.

[leftist_not_liberal]

65. The billions are not the cause

but rather the millions in the first world are, most especially the energy hogs who live in the USA.

The rest of the overpopulation meme is just as wrong as it was when Thomas Malthus first wrote about it...it is the ecocidal life-styles of the upscale, the so-called American Dream that is killing the planet.

And naturally, first worlders prefer to blame the poor masses. How bourgeois. How flatly obviously WRONG.

[defendandprotect]

71. Thanks for the posts, guys --- !!! My real shock was when I came to realize . . .

that not only our species would be gone --- perhaps not that great a loss? ---
but that the planet may not make it ---

I heard this more than 15 years or so ago --- and I was shocked ---

We've exploded nuclear weapons in outer space --- and we're still trying to bring nukes into space, evidently. PLUS, JFK was fighting NASA using some type of nuclear fuel ---

Anyway, it looks like we're impacting the universe ---
carrying our aggression and violence out into space ---

See: PNAC ---
"In your face from space"

[leaninglib]

60. And to think...as little as 20 years ago the "in crowd" was telling us

that the ice age was coming.

The sheeple bought that one too.

[hatrack]

66. What "in crowd" are you referring to? Scientists? Time Magazine? The crowd at the Viper Room?

Who was predicting an ice age? Who, precisely? Provide specific references - articles, publication dates, scientific journals, proceedings of scientific academies, authors - if you expect to be taken in the least seriously.

Do you understand? Put up or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

84. Too bad the SCIENTIFIC community never said that

Only a SINGLE article in TIME Magazine in the 1970's, that quoted a SINGLE scientist OUT OF CONTEXT, and off the spin machine went.

You believing that there was ever a concern in the scientific community about a new Ice Age shows that YOU are the one who bought the spin and became one of the sheeple. Enjoy.

[leaninglib]

91. Nice try, son. But I was just as skeptical then, as I am now.

Follow along, now. :hi:

[NickB79]

95. So you can provide a source, then?

One that shows that there was actual serious concern in the 1970's regarding global cooling from the scientific community? One that isn't centered around the ONE article in Time Magazine?

In case you'd care to read it, RealClimate demolishes the "global cooling" myth: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94.

[jpak]

97. Your skepticism is based on a myth

No scientist in the 1970's *ever* claimed we were entering into a period of "global cooling"...

Typical RW nonsense...

[Critters2]

45. Nonsense. The publisher of our local paper says

there's nothing to this global warming silliness.

http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=347460&query=warming

[tom_paine]

47. Ready now? All on three: one....two...THREE!

:party: :toast: "No one could have foreseen this!" :party: :toast:

[Javaman]

50. Not the least bit surprised, but not why you think...

I think it's always been worse than predicted. If they told us the truth right off the back, I think there would be two very distinct reactions. One, major depression by the people who know better and two, the mass flinging of shit by the morons who don't believe

they are lowering us gently into that hot bath.

I say, in about another year or two, they are going to release a report that basically will state that the temp will rise 4+ by the end of the century.

basically, a scientific way of saying, "we are fucked no matter what we do".

Wait for it.

[Maestro]

51. Meanwhile Democratic Leaders Poised to Sabotage Hope for Renewable Energy

Look here at this post of mine in the Environment and Energy forum. Somebody needs to stand up and take a stand.

[live love laugh]

54. Tuesday morning driving to work, the golf course was full...in WISCONSIN

There is sweet red watermelon for sale at grocery stores...in WISCONSIN.

My neighbor cut his grass early Saturday morning, November 10th...in WISCONSIN.


I don't need scientists to tell me that global warming is worse than predicted. The evidence is all around me.

[calteacherguy]

56. We have nuclear technology now to help mitigate this

we need to use more of the technology a.s.a.p. At the same time, we need to develop alternative energy sources...but we can't wait for them.

Climate change is far more dangerous than any amount of additional nuclear waste generated by the construction of new plants.

[defendandprotect]

72. Nukes are a bad idea for people and the environment --- dangerous ---

[NickB79]

85. And fossil fuels are less dangerous?

Seriously, at this point we need to make hard choices about our energy future, because we can't keep burning fossil fuels and we can't keep waiting another 50 years before renewables make a small dent in our energy consumption.

Did you read about the new study released last week that stated that the pollution from cargo ships alone cause 60,000 deaths per year? One Chernobyl event every year would kill less people than those currently killed by air pollution from ships alone. And, this is just from the actual particulate and smog pollution; global warming will kill billions through famine, disease and war over the next few decades.

We need to scale up non-fossil energy sources, FAST, or see our civilization return to an 1800's style of living by the end of the century (if we're lucky). Nuclear is one such option, and all the nuclear waste a few thousand reactors worldwide could produce is far less lethal than the CO2 we are currently releasing.

[defendandprotect]

93. We need to get rid of both --- fossil fuels and nukes ---

Yeah, by all means, let's have more Chernobyl's --- !!!

Nuclear isn't an option ---
Actually, wasn't there just an article on how much pollution, radiation and petroleum is used in running these things? Not to mention waste issues - - !!!

Especially if you recognize that we are facing chaotic weather --- nukes would be a disastrous idea --- and they take 6 months to properly close down!

We need to nationalize our natural resoures ---
build wind and solar --
dismantle the huge electic networks ---
and return to more local concepts of supply electricity ---

We also need to replace very gas-guzzler on the roads with ELECTRIC CARS ---

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?" Movie . . . rentable

We could do this over a five year period ---

Subsidize the mfg and purchase ---

Light bulbs are not going to do it . . . !!!

[NickB79]

96. You do realize how little solar and wind supply to the global power supply, right?

Worldwide, we use approximately 430-440 exojoules of energy per year. Solar and wind supply, at best, less than 2 exojoules of that demand. The only major source of non-fossil and non-nuclear energy today is hydroelectric, but as the Australians are finding out, global warming-induced droughts tend to, well, dry up their hydroelectric dams.

"Especially if you recognize that we are facing chaotic weather --- nukes would be a disastrous idea --- and they take 6 months to properly close down!"

How chaotic of weather are you talking about? The Japanese have tested the containment domes of their reactors to withstand the impact of a jet aircraft, much less a tornado or hurricane. Several nuclear reactors were hit by hurricanes along the Gulf Coast in the past few years, with no incidents. The Japanese reactor that was damaged by a strong earthquake in the past year released the radioactive equivalent of 20 smoke alarms.

[defendandprotect]

98. Almost 200,000 homes served with WIND set up in 4 months in CA ---

This was in response to what was happening with Enron ---

We need to get rid of these endless networks which serve monopoly electricity --

and return to the idea of local generation of electricity ---

Again --- something over 176,000 homes were connected to WIND service --
and all of this was put in place in a four month period in California.

As for the dangers of nukes, evidently you don't understand the true threat of Global Warming --
nor, evidently, have you been thinking about Bush's "terraism" ---



QUOTE: ---

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us


· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer


Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html UNQUOTE

[NickB79]

99. So, how long are you willing to wait to get solar and wind up to 10% of world demand?

Because we've had solar for 50 years and have yet to see it produce even 1 exojoule of world energy demand. Wind, after decades of development as well, has just recently broken 1 exojoule. Wind and solar combined, like I previously posted, satisfy less than 0.5% of global energy demand (total demand ~430 exojoules).

Like I stated in my first post, we don't have 50 years to wait to build up enough renewables. Germany, the star of the renewables movement, is decommissioning their nuclear reactors and replacing them with 66 MILION tons of coal imported from South Africa by 2020. We currently have a bottleneck in solar production because of a lack of silicon, and current production is nothing compared to what we need. We don't have decades to wait around anymore.

[defendandprotect]

100. When you have outdated or premature information . . . it may look like . . .

Electric Cars don't work ---

See: "Who Killed the Electric Car?" for one amazing and shocking look at the
automobile industry ---

and scientists who have been held back ---

We haven't had solar --- in fact, Reagan ripped the "solar" out of the White House!!!

We've had the oil industry in control of our government the past 40 years or more --

Why are you talking about 50 years???

AGAIN, as I said in a four month period, WIND was set up to serve 176,000 families or more!

And these technologies have been suppressed ---

And, as you can see, the Pentagon is quite clear on the chaotic and compounding conditions of

Global Warming --- which would warn against any future use of nuclear plants ---

[Andy Canuck]

58. Sadlly,

the forest are currently producing more CO2 due to fires (beecause of global warming) than O2.

[Massachusetts]

61. Mother Nature is in CHARGE

and will fix what we have broken, in her own way, no matter what we feeble humans do. Does anyone have some SP100?

[defendandprotect]

94. Well, unfortunately maybe not ---

I woke up to this in '88 --- it was Bush calling the "pro-life" rally --

and I recognized immediately this was coming fascism ---

but I headed to my library and started reading everything I could ---

Reexamining all my values, concepts ---

and, naturally, Global Warming info was heavy in the mix --

It was shocking ---

but the most shocking was the day when I came to understand that the planet may not keep turning ---

there are questions about that ---

We have done great damage to the planet ---

and the compounding of the effects of Global Warming are going to be very rapid at some point and

very serious ---

Our pollution of the planet is horrifc --

Overpopulation has placed insane burdens on the planet ---

About 15 years ago, the NY Times reported in their front section that ....

"the dams and reservoirs our Army Corps of Engineers had built over the last 50+ years . . .
were impacting the rotation of the earth."

Sadly, the planet isn't indestructible ---

and I think we've come close to proving that ---!!

[leftist_not_liberal]

62. PARK YOUR CAR.

There is NOTHING you can do that is as effective as leaving behind the Car CULTure.


http://walkingshoeguru.com


http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/intbikes_category.php?id=110


http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/


http://www.bionx.ca/index.php


http://www.vectrix.com

[defendandprotect]

73. So true . . . !!!

How I miss being able to ride a bike --- !!!

May I also add ---
Ending animal-exploitation would also help the planet greatly!!!

[allisonthegreat]

81. do not drive...got rid of my car

it is a pain but at least trying to be in the solution not live in the problem.

[defendandprotect]

83. Good for you ---

I'm a former New Yorker --- when the city actually worked quite well ---

Electric car maybe in my future --- but I doubt giving it up at this point ---

I came to the suburbs kicking and screaming --- had nightmares about melding into my car --

we were one!!!

[killbotfactory]

77. Who cares?

Rich people are making a lot of money, what's more important than that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. And if you try to tell me that you HAVE TO have an SUV to haul your two children

around and that you HAVE TO live fifty miles from your job or else you won't be able to afford a house of the size you desire, my response is, "So you're helping to kill the planet for your own vanity?"

[Hosnon]

86. My brother does not believe that humans have the ability to significantly affect the environment.

Does anyone know of a succinct, indisputable counter-example?

[wishlist]

88. Ozone layer was being depleted, CFC's were banned and holes closed up

Scientists speculated that the holes in the ozone layer (observed 30 years or so ago) were caused by CFC's used in spray cans. CFC's were subsequently banned and the ozone layer was restored.

Widespread DDT spraying on agricultural crops was speculated by scientists to be the reason that eagles and falcons and other birds were facing near extinction and when DDT use on fields was halted, those species of birds thrived again.

[NickB79]

89. Ask him what the results of a global nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR would have done

And if he's ever heard of the phrase "global nuclear winter".

[Hosnon]

102. Oops. I should have added that he excepted that single instance. (nt)

[alfredo]

87. Carbon holidays, one day off a week. America shuts down. It has

several benefits beyond pollution. It gives families time to grow to hate each other more, I mean have quality time.

[babydollhead]

101. kick

[GliderGuider]

103. According to Dr. Albert Bartlett

"If any fraction of the global warming can be attributed to the action of humans, then this by itself is positive proof that the world population, living as we do, has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth. So it is an Inconvenient Truth that any proposals to solve the global warming problem that don't include reducing populations to sustainable levels are gross intellectual frauds."

For more on Dr. Bartlett and why he is considered one of the great educators of this crisis, http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/">read this page. Peak oil, climate change and ecological collapse all come back to too many people doing too much on a finite planet.

My reading of the global situation is that we have less than fifteen years left before things become critical, though we're already past the point when we could prevent that outcome. Half a generation is simply not enough time for fertility reductions to do anything significant to help in places where raw human numbers matter such as Africa and Asia. In places where over-consumption is the problem, like North America and Europe, there is no mechanism short of a global depression that will reduce consumption enough to matter.

Our impact on the planet will be reduced in the time-tested ways experienced by by all species in overshoot. It's a bleak thought, but I see little chance that we will avoid this through our own efforts. For a smart species we've been incredibly stupid. Exponential growth has killed us.