How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed May 15, 2013 5:53 pm

So, worrying really only serves one's fear. Change is upon us and we are acting as though blind, continuing down the path to doom. How will those in the future feel about us with all our comforts?

So, if you're only kinda worried about those 'temporary' droughts and floods, here's something to consider:

This Tiny Sphere is All the World's Water
By Veronique Greenwood | May 14, 2012 9:34 am

Image

When you’re trudging through the pouring rain to the office, it seems like the Earth possesses an infinite amount of water, a not-insignificant amount of which is dripping down your collar. But when you see an image like this one, produced by the USGS, it hammers home the reality of the situation: the water’s all spread out in a very thin layer, like a millimeter of frosting on a cake. If you gathered all the world’s water—from oceans, lakes, groundwater, water vapor, everything—into a sphere, it would have a diameter of 860 miles. That’s the distance between Salt Lake City and Topeka, Kansas.

That’s still a fairly big sphere, when you think about it: that same water spread out in an even layer across the United States would leave us under a 90-mile-deep lake. But it isn’t nearly as big as you might expect, looking at our blue marble in photos from space or dipping your toes in the Atlantic. To boot, very little of that water—less than 4%—is freshwater, and the vast majority of that is locked up in glaciers and ice caps. We’ve got just a tiny fraction of that sphere at our disposal; it behooves us to use it wisely.

Read more at the USGS.

Note: the USGS link has much more information.

Now looking at that tiny bit of water, all the water on earth, think about how much of that is fresh water available to us to use. Think about the billions of fresh water being ruined by hydrofracking. Think you have a good idea now how much of the world''s water is fresh water?

Take a look and see how well you visualized how much fresh water is available to the world's billions people and agriculture:

80beats

And THIS Tiny Sphere is All the World's Water *That We Can Use*
By Veronique Greenwood | May 18, 2012 2:46 pm

A few days ago, we wrote about a remarkable graphic released by the USGS, showing all the water on Earth—freshwater, saltwater, water vapor, water in plants and animals; all of it—rolled into a sphere.

That sphere was only 860 miles in diameter, fitting comfortably between Salt Lake City and Topeka, Kansas, on a map. It was striking, especially considering that the water available for humans use in our daily lives is only a very small fraction of that; the vast majority of the Earth’s water is saltwater, and most of the freshwater is tied up in glaciers.

How big would a sphere of just the freshwater available to humans be? Reader Jay Kimball of 8020Vision, his interest piqued, went ahead and made such a graphic:

Image

That sphere—the sphere representing the freshwater available to humans—has a diameter of just 170 miles. Head to his blog to see the math.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Simulist » Wed May 15, 2013 10:00 pm

That's a powerful post, Iam. Frustratingly, maddeningly powerful.

Sometime back, you asked me a question; I did not respond, because there is no honest response, given the magnitude of the problem, except: "Precious little."

Iamwhomiam wrote:
Simulist wrote,
coffin_dodger wrote:

Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark - 10 May 2013

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark.
Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time.
The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958.
The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.



more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22486153



What other topic in the news is more important than this single story?

Precisely now: WHICH ONE?!?

Dr. Evil wrote,
None, whatsoever.


Quite true. What are you doing about it? Just wondering.


I'm really not sure what to do about it — that is, what to do about it that has even a chance of being effective.

Short of literally "ending civilization as we know it" (a course of action I sincerely believe the people and governments of the world should not only be planning for but also implementing — and right now), I'm really not sure what can be done. Recycling and driving a Prius are not real solutions; neither is carrying a sign up and down the street with a picture of a steaming planet and the words, "The End is Near." Even if millions of people did exactly that all over this rapidly-warming world, simultaneously! And repeatedly.

And even though the end is probably much, much-nearer than almost anyone will admit. Civilization as we know it, will end. In all probability.

So what to do when the real solution (the voluntary end of civilization) is "unrealistic," and the cost of our collective "not doing it" is massive death and possible, perhaps even probable, extinction?

I'm not sure. But I think you have to start with what you have: the truth — and, instead of proposing numerous anemic responses which imply false promises, we have to tell it.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Thu May 16, 2013 12:20 am

the individual will have to learn to find their identity within the system, rather than through defining, controlling or defying the system. The system being the sum of human activity organized around working with the earths natural systems and within their limits, in time augmenting and enhancing them as possible. Extra effort will have to go toward restoration and coping with the changes already underway. This will be the fundamental organizing principle of all humans existence starting soon, or we're finished. Luckily most of it will often be fun.

We have an ecology deficit.

and severe austerity measures are going to be implemented
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Simulist » Thu May 16, 2013 12:21 pm

justdrew wrote:the individual will have to learn to find their identity within the system, rather than through defining, controlling or defying the system. The system being the sum of human activity organized around working with the earths natural systems and within their limits, in time augmenting and enhancing them as possible. Extra effort will have to go toward restoration and coping with the changes already underway. This will be the fundamental organizing principle of all humans existence starting soon, or we're finished. Luckily most of it will often be fun.

We have an ecology deficit.

and severe austerity measures are going to be implemented

I'd actually like to believe something like that, JD.

In the absence of sufficient evidence for this though, what I think is more likely to happen is that a relative few will continue to "think" they are planning for this and that, especially for the rest of us, everything will go on pretty much as it is right now until, suddenly, it just doesn't anymore. And then things get really, really ugly... really, really fast.

So I'm honestly hoping that I'm not seeing the full picture.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu May 16, 2013 2:36 pm

Iamwhomiam wrote:What are you doing about it? Just wondering.


That's the problem. How do you fight the largest, most powerful corporations in the world?
I recycle, use public transportation and eat local, organic food whenever I can, but I'm perfectly aware that all that does is make me feel better about myself.

Warning - Starry-eyed, hopelessly naive daydreaming ahead:

If I could I would take our sovereign wealth fund and turn it into an activist green fund (It's kinda pointless to save it for future generations as things stand).
Start off by closing down all our oil and gas business, and mitigate the worst fallout with the fund, then take whatever is left and invest in factory mass-produced thorium reactors, wind, solar etc., and get carbon capture working.
Also, fund prototypes of every single fusion project that looks even remotely promising, and start preparing some contingency plans and technology for geo-engineering, in case things go completely ballistic.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu May 16, 2013 7:24 pm

The North Pole moves as ice sheets melt

ImageImage: Allen Lunsford, NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory; Data:Tromso receiving station, Svalbard, Norway

A true-color image taken on May 5, 2000, by an instrument aboard NASA's Terra spacecraft, over the North Pole, with sea ice shown in white and open water in black.

By Becky Oskin
LiveScience

The North Pole’s surprise trip toward Greenland is due to Earth's rapidly melting ice sheets, a new study finds.

The distribution of mass across the planet determines the position of Earth's poles. Because Earth is a bit egg-shaped, the North Pole is always slightly off-center. It's also been slowly drifting south, responding to long-term changes since the last Ice Age, as the enormous ice sheets that once covered large swaths of the planet melted and parts of the Earth rebounded from the lost weight.

But in 2005, the pole suddenly started making a beeline east for Greenland, moving a few centimeters eastward each year. The cause? Rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, finds a study published Monday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Ice loss and the associated sea-level rise account for more than 90 percent of the polar shift, Nature News reported.

Melting ice moves mass around by adding water to the oceans and lightening the load on ice-covered crust. Although global ice melt plays a role in the pole's shift, Greenland itself is the primary contributor to the eastward movement, the researchers found. "Both of (those factors) are contributing, but now we can say glacial melting in Greenland produces an observable polar motion," said Clark Wilson, a study co-author at the University of Texas, Austin.

The change is small, dwarfed by the pole's broad wandering circles, which are caused by Earth's bulging midriff (the 14-month Chandler wobble) and an annual wobble related to seasonal shifts. However, "if you remove those effects, you'll see a long-term drift," Wilson told LiveScience.

Using data from NASA's GRACE satellite, which measures Earth's gravity field, the researchers tested whether Greenland's ice loss changed the pole position. The data can track how water and ice shift across the planet. "Mass is moving around all the time," Wilson said.

Knowing the precise location of the North Pole has become a critical part of modern life. It's the foundation of GPS, which guides people with mapping apps, as well as military systems and planes.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby KUAN » Thu May 16, 2013 8:02 pm

A committee of 7,119,685,874 doesn't make for consensus. That and the fact that it is the natural order of things for the psycho / sociopaths to be at the top, (at every level), mean that nothing effective will happen.

O well... just the story of another dumb multi-celled organism writ large.
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Thu May 16, 2013 8:58 pm

well, no need to panic over this particular particular just yet...

http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/atmos_oxy_karen_v-t.html
Atmospheric Oxygen Decline Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion
Karen Villarante-Tonido, Philippines
Original Post: Feb. 14, 2012

Conclusion

Although atmospheric O2 levels are gradually declining as CO2 continues to accumulate in the air from fossil fuel combustion, fortunately an O2 crisis is not yet a likely scenario. Oxygen is quite abundant in the atmosphere that even when fossil fuel reserves (mostly coal) are exhausted, the maximum potential loss in oxygen is only small (Broecker, 1970). The oxygen decline of 0.0317% is considered not significant and should not arouse serious concern at this point. Mr. Ray Langenfelds of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Australia further adds that this level of oxygen reduction actually has no impact on our breathing (Science Daily, 1999). He said that typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air can actually be greater than this.

In fact, scientists agree that today, oxygen levels are even less than 20.95% in certain areas such as densely populated, polluted city centers and industrial complexes (Tatchell, 2008). According to a UN adviser, Professor Ervin Laszlo, “Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12% to 17% over the major cities” (Tatchell, 2008). Hence, the oxygen decline currently recorded is still not a serious environmental concern at this point.

Fortunately, nature also helps maintain its balance amidst the rising CO2 levels, decreasing O2 levels, global warming and climate change. Researchers believe that the warmer conditions and higher CO2 concentrations make plants grow more rapidly (Science Daily, 1999), thereby increasing O2 output. This probably makes up for the O2 molecules lost due to fossil fuel combustion.

Modern solutions have also been proposed to reverse the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere. For example, Sandia Laboratory in the United States has developed a technology which can turn carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide, thereby releasing one of the molecule’s bound oxygen atoms through the use of solar energy. The resulting carbon monoxide can then be used to produce different kinds of fuel like hydrogen, methanol and gasoline using conventional technologies (Hasselberger). This however, has not yet been developed into usable technology.

But perhaps the most obvious and simple solution to the problem of declining oxygen levels in the atmosphere is to decrease, if not completely stop fossil fuel burning while shifting to non-carbon based sources of energy (Johnston, 2007), stop deforestation and destruction of natural ecosystems and plant trees.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:44 am

Perhaps this thread is best suited for this post:

The Southwest's Forests May Never Recover From Megafires
"Abnormal" fire risks are the new normal.

—By Richard Schiffman | Mon Jul. 8, 2013 10:23 AM PDT

This story first appeared on The Atlantic website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

If you doubt that climate change is transforming the American landscape, go to Santa Fe, New Mexico. Sweltering temperatures there have broken records this summer, and a seemingly permanent orange haze of smoke hangs in the air from multiple wildfires.

Take a ride into the mountains and you'll see one blackened ridge after another where burns in the past few years have ravaged the national forest. Again, this year, fires in New Mexico and neighboring states of Colorado and Arizona are destroying wilderness areas.

Fire danger is expected to remain abnormally high for the rest of the summer throughout much of the Intermountain West. But "abnormal" fire risks have become the new normal.

The tragic death of 19 firefighters in the Yarnell fire near Prescott, Arizona last Sunday shows just how dangerous these highly unpredictable wind-driven wildfires can be.

The last 10 years have seen more than 60 mega-fires over 100,000 acres in size in the West. When they get that big, firefighters often let them burn themselves out, over a period of weeks, or even months. These fires typically leave a scorched earth behind that researchers are beginning to fear may never come back as forest again.

Fires, of course, are a natural part of the forest lifecycle, clearing out old stands and making way for vigorous new growth out of the carbon-rich ashes. What is not natural is the frequency and destructiveness of the wildfires in the past decade—fires which move faster, burn hotter, and are proving harder to manage than ever before. These wildfires are not exactly natural, because scientists believe that some of the causes, at least, are human-created.

For one thing, the intensity of the recent fires, researchers say, is in part the result of a warming and drying trend which has been underway for over a decade, and which some climate scientists believe will become a permanent condition as anthropogenic climate change continues to increase.

Experts also blame the fire-suppression policy which has been in effect for much of the last century. In the past, frequent low-intensity lightning fires left behind a park-like patchwork of woodlands and open meadows. The Smokey the Bear philosophy of fire prevention interfered with this natural pattern. By always putting fires out rather than letting them burn freely, forests throughout the West have become thick and overgrown.

This well meaning but unwise policy decreased fire dangers in the short term, but increased them exponentially in the long run on 277 million acres of fire-prone public lands. When forests do burn now, instead of the gentler, meandering fires of the past, the unnaturally high fuel loads often make for rampaging fire-storms that typically destroy everything in their path.

In earlier low-grade wildfires, the trees that survived seeded recovery in the next generation. Nowadays, by contrast, the fierce heat of the mega-fires frequently incinerates all of the conifer seeds and seedlings and sterilizes the soil, making it all but impossible for the forest to regenerate.

In the Jemez mountains west of Santa Fe, the charred remnants of the 2011 Las Conchas blaze stretch for miles above the atomic city of Los Alamos. It was the biggest wildfire in New Mexico's recorded history, until the following year, when lightning ignited the Whitewater Baldy fire in the southern part of state torching an area nearly half the size of Rhode Island.

Much of the Los Alamos burn resembles today a lunar landscapes—vast slopes of denuded gray soil where little vegetation has come back. Hillsides, once covered with ponderosa pine and squat, drought tolerant pinon and juniper trees, now grow only clumps of cheatgrass, an invasive species, and occasional bush-like shrub oaks. Biologist Craig Allen of the US Geological Survey, who has has spent years studying the Southwest forest ecosystem, says that areas like these won't be forested again in our lifetime, and possibly they never will be. The reason that Allen and others are pessimistic is that climate change is hitting the Southwest harder and faster than most other areas in the US The region has warmed on average between 2 and 5 degrees during the past century, and this trend is expected to accelerate in the years ahead.

Add to this the danger from what scientists call a possible "mega-drought." The Southwest has always been prone to extended dry periods, like the one which archeologists believe drove the Anasazi people of Chaco Canyon in the Four Corner's area to the wetter Rio Grande Valley in the late 13th century. But a study published last year in the journal Nature Climate says that, by 2050, the region will be even drier than in previous mega-droughts. Moreover, hot summer temperatures in the southwest will literally suck the water our of leaves and needles killing trees in unprecedented numbers. "The majority of forests in the Southwest probably cannot survive in the temperatures that are projected," one of the study's co-authors, Park Williams, a bio-climatologist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory told Environment 360.

The stress that trees are already under becomes clear during a short drive north of Santa Fe. Whole hillsides near the town of Abiquiu, made famous by the haunting desert landscapes of Georgia O'Keefe, are now covered by the ashen skeletons of pinon pines. The trees, weakened by years of drought, were finally killed off in the late nineteen nineties by bark beetles, insects which have also devastated numerous stands of ponderosa and spruce at higher elevations.

Given these plagues of biblical proportions—fire, heat, drought and insects—the future for the Southwest's forests looks dim. Whether they will survive at all may depend on what we do—or fail to do—in the next few years on the biggest plague of all: climate change.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:48 pm

So what about when the 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions already bought and paid for on energy companies' books are extracted and burned? How to adapt to certain death of the species?

This piece is about the record rains and flooding in Toronto. I hope everyone up there is okay.

POSTED TORONTO
We are wasting money trying to fight climate change instead of adapting to it

Terence Corcoran, National Post Staff | 13/07/10 12:17 AM ET

Comment

How on Earth are we going to fight this apparently new scourge? Rainstorms bring floods in Toronto that cause electricity system blackouts, transit shutdowns and major financial havoc. Floods in Alberta do the same to the Calgary region. The instant reaction, in some circles, is to pin the blame on climate change and use the events as a launch pad for new calls for action on carbon emissions.

There are two reasons why this response to these dramatic weather events is mistaken. One is that the science does not support the claim that today’s local weather extremes are a function of man-made climate change. Even David Suzuki, one of the grandfathers of climate alarmism, concedes as much. “Can we say the recent flooding and extreme weather in Southern Alberta and B.C. were caused by global warming? Maybe not,” he wrote recently in response to the Alberta floods.

But it doesn’t matter whether you think killer weather is or is not caused by global warming. The more important question is what we do about it, and here is where the policy agenda has been hijacked. Instead of spending billions of dollars chasing carbon emission reductions at home and around the world, why not spend money making Toronto and other cities less vulnerable to floods, heat waves and other events.

Here’s a pointed way to put the issue. If in recent years Ontario had spent billions of dollars bringing electricity system infrastructure in Toronto up to higher standards, instead of sinking billions into wind and solar farms off in the countryside, maybe the Greater Toronto Area electricity system would not have been as shaken by this week’s flood events.

There is no way to prove this, of course. But if we know bad weather is coming, and that Toronto’s transit, water drainage systems and power infrastructures are severely compromised and inadequate due to lack of investment in the past, the obvious option is to change policy. A focus on investment aimed at adapting to changing weather patterns might have saved Etobicoke from its power crisis, the subways might have been running, and some of the flooding might have been avoided.

It might surprise Canadians to know that there is a solid economic policy case in favour of abandoning the idea of mitigating climate change by trying to control carbon emissions — and the weather — in favour of doing something about the effects of the weather, whatever the cause of the floods and hurricanes.

“Right now in Canada, 98% of all discussions are always on mitigation, mitigation, mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, and almost next to nothing on adaptation,” said Blair Feltmate, an associate professor and chair of the Climate Change Adaptation Project at the University of Waterloo. “We should be putting an awful lot more effort, time and money into adaptation.” The main reason, says Mr. Feltmate in an interview, is that the benefits of adaptation are local and attainable while the impact of mitigation via carbon reduction are global and unattainable. “It’s effectively lost money,” said Mr. Feltmate. He recently told an Ontario renewable energy group that their massive investments in wind and solar power will serve no purpose.

No matter how may windmills are built, fossil fuels — oil, gas, coal — are going to be the dominant source of energy around the world for decades to come. That’s true no matter how much Canadians do to reduce emissions. Renewables account for about 13.5% of world energy production today, unchanged from more than two decades. Recent international forecasts say renewables –including nuclear—will never make it much above 13% of world output for decades to come.

Spending vast amounts of money to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate change therefore “is just a waste of money,” said Mr. Feltmate. If fossil fuels are here to stay, the only sound objective is to prepare for the future by adapting to reasonable expectations of future weather systems and events. One can argue over the cause of the events, but not about the need to spend money to adapt to the events.

The cost of adaptation, moreover, need not be that great. Billions of dollars will have to be spent upgrading power, transit and urban infrastructure no matter what. The Canadian Electrical Association claims $350-billion in new investment will be needed over the next 20 years to maintain the country’s electricity system. Adapting that investment to meet the possibility of greater weather events will involve minor changes in spending, says Mr. Feltmate.

At the local level, in Toronto and elsewhere, that means doing what needs to be done to renew the electricity systems and transit systems, and making the necessary adjustments to meet new weather circumstances. Even without the weather, urban populations and conditions have also changed, making cities more vulnerable. David Phillips, Environment Canada’s chief meteorologist, said in a Toronto Star interview that major cities are becoming more vulnerable to flooding as more of them are covered with asphalt. Building materials are impervious to rain and so “we end up with flash floods,” he said.

Adaptation to weather events is nothing new. The objective of individuals, corporations and governments should be preparedness in the face of events that seem predictable and inevitable, rather than on trying to pull giant strings to change the forces that may or may not be causing the events.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:13 pm

Giant Iceberg Breaks Off Antarctic Glacier
By Denise Chow, Staff WriterDate: 10 July 2013 Time: 11:39 AM ET

On the left handside the newly formed isberg with the a size of 720 square kilometres is visible.

A massive iceberg, larger than the city of Chicago, broke off of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier on Monday (July 8), and is now floating freely in the Amundsen Sea, according to a team of German scientists.

The newborn iceberg measures about 278 square miles (720 square kilometers), and was seen by TerraSAR-X, an earth-observing satellite operated by the German Space Agency (DLR). Scientists with NASA's Operation IceBridgefirst discovered a giant crack in the Pine Island Glacier in October 2011, as they were flying over and surveying the sprawling ice sheet.

At that time, the fissure spanned about 15 miles (24 km) in length and 164 feet (50 meters) in width, according to researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. In May 2012, satellite images revealed a second rift had formed near the northern side of the first crack.


"As a result of these cracks, one giant iceberg broke away from the glacier tongue," Angelika Humbert, a glaciologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, said in a statement. [Photo Gallery: Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier Cracks]


An aerial shot of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier. On July 8, 2013, a huge piece of the glacier's ice shelf (the portion that floats on the water) broke off to form a new iceberg.
CREDIT: Angelika Humbert, Alfred-Wegener-Institut.
View full size image
Humbert and her colleagues studied high resolution radar images taken by the TerraSAR-X satellite to track the changes in the two cracks, and to observe the processes behind glacier movements.

"Using the images we have been able to follow how the larger crack on the Pine Island Glacier extended initially to a length of 28 kilometers [17 miles]," Nina Wilkens, one of the team researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute, said in a statement. "Shortly before the 'birth' of the iceberg, the gap then widened bit by bit so that it measured around 540 meters [1,770 feet] at its widest point."

As the Pine Island Glacier retreats and flows out to sea, it develops and drops icebergs as part of a natural and cyclical process, Humbert said. But, the way the ice breaks, or "calves," is still somewhat mysterious.

"Glaciers are constantly in motion," she said. "They have their very own flow dynamics. Their ice is exposed to permanent tensions and the calving of icebergs is still largely unresearched."

The Pine Island Glacier ice shelf, the part of the glacier that extends out into the water, last produced large icebergs in 2001 and 2007.


The glacier is the longest and fastest-changing on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. While Humbert and her colleagues did not draw direct connections between this week's calving event and climate change, other scientists, including marine geologists at the British Antarctic Survey, are investigating whether global warming is thinning Antarctica's ice sheets and speeding up the glacier's retreat.

Yet, the flow of the Pine Island Glacier may be driven by other factors, Humbert said. The glacier flows to the Amundsen Sea at a rate of about 2.5 miles (4 km) per year. She says whether the flow speeds up or slows down is based more on changing wind directions in the Amundsen Sea, and less by rising air temperatures.

"The wind now brings warm sea water beneath the shelf ice," Humbert said. "Over time, this process means that the shelf ice melts from below, primarily at the so-called grounding line, the critical transition to the land ice."

Still, if the glacier's flow speeds up, it could have serious consequences, the researchers said. The Pine Island Glacier currently acts as a plug, holding back part of the immense West Antarctic Ice Sheet whose melting ice contributes to rising sea levels.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:20 pm

New Report Tracks Decades of Climate Change
Long-term data shows an unmistakable trend

By BROOKE JARVIS
July 10, 2013 3:55 PM ET
In May 2010, the temperature in Pakistan soared to more than 128 degrees – the hottest temperature ever recorded in Asia. Just a few months later, extreme monsoons left more than a fifth of the country underwater. Around the same time, Russian authorities declared the worst heat wave in 1,000 years; tens of thousands died as heat and smoke from wildfires overwhelmed Moscow.

Floods, droughts and heat records grab headlines, but it can be hard to know what they mean. We've all heard that while climate change makes extreme weather more likely, it's difficult to tie any particular weather event directly to climate change. When it comes to weather, a certain amount of out-of-the-ordinary is ordinary. So how do we know when extreme weather is the result of natural variations and when it's a sign of something more?

The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Climate Change

A new report from the World Meteorological Organization tries to contextualize the headlines of recent years by taking the long view – considering all those heat waves, droughts and storms not as single events, but across decades. "A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud in a statement.

2010's brutal summer, it turns out, capped what the study calls "a decade of climate extremes." With just one exception, every year between 2001 and 2010 was among the top 10 hottest on record. More than nine in 10 nations reporting data experienced their hottest decade ever; not a single nation reported decadal temperatures below the average. The decade was also the second wettest in a century –2010 was the globe's wettest year ever – but also saw severe drought in much of the world.

And Pakistan and Russia weren't alone in facing deadly weather. Remember 2003's heat wave in Europe, the continent's worst since the 1500s, which killed as many as 70,000 people? Hurricane Katrina? Cyclone Nargis?

Natural climate variability can explain some of the decade's extremes, the report cautions, but human-induced climate change also played a role. That role is even more visible when you look at extreme weather events within the context of an extreme decade.

The report also provides an even longer view: a decade-by-decade comparison of average temperatures across the globe (combined from land and sea temperatures from three different sources), with any spikes from freak weather averaged out by a more complete set of data. Instead, we see an unmistakable trend: up and up.

It's the extreme events that make headlines, but it's the long view that should make us worried.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Freitag » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:27 pm

seemslikeadream » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:20 pm wrote:the continent's worst since the 1500s
User avatar
Freitag
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:17 pm

Luther Blissett » Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:48 pm wrote:So what about when the 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions already bought and paid for on energy companies' books are extracted and burned? How to adapt to certain death of the species?

This piece is about the record rains and flooding in Toronto. I hope everyone up there is okay.



Just for further confirmation:

Evolution too slow to deal with climate change, study says

By Michael Thomas
Jul 10, 2013 - yesterday in Science

A new study by a University of Arizona ecologist says that most vertebrates will have to evolve 10,000 times as quickly as they did in the past in order to keep up with climate change expected in the next 100 years.

The study, which was published in the journal Ecology Letters, says that terrestrial vertebrates don't seem to evolve quickly enough to adapt to what are expected to be dramatically warmer temperatures by 2100. The study also says that vertebrates who can't adapt in time will face extinction.

The study had John J. Wiens, a professor of the university's ecology and evolutionary biology department, and research partner Ignacio Quintero look at some 540 species of vertebrates including mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The two compared the animals' rates of evolution alongside current rates of climate change.

To analyze the data, Wiens and Quintero analyzed phylogenies, which are in essence evolutionary family trees that show how recently in the past animals split from their trees. The study covered 17 family trees which encompass most major animal groups.

This is the first study that has compared past rates of evolutionary change to future rates of climate change.

"We found that on average, species usually adapt to different climatic conditions at a rate of only by about one degree Celsius per million years," said Wiens. "But if global temperatures are going to rise by about four degrees over the next hundred years as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, that is where you get a huge difference in rates. What that suggests overall is that simply evolving to match these conditions may not be an option for many species."

Nature World News reports that, according to a recent statement by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, about 21,000 animal species are at risk of extinction because of climate change and habitat loss.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:20 pm

This is a bit long. I suggest you draw a glass of water before reading it. I'm sure you'll feel a bit better if you do.

Peak Water: What Happens When the Wells Go Dry?
July 9, 2013

Lester Brown

Image


Peak oil has generated headlines in recent years, but the real threat to our future is peak water. There are substitutes for oil, but not for water. We can produce food without oil, but not without water.

We drink on average four liters of water per day, in one form or another, but the food we eat each day requires 2,000 liters of water to produce, or 500 times as much. Getting enough water to drink is relatively easy, but finding enough to produce the ever-growing quantities of grain the world consumes is another matter.

Grain consumed directly supplies nearly half of our calories. That consumed indirectly as meat, milk and eggs supplies a large part of the remainder. Today, roughly 40 percent of the world grain harvest comes from irrigated land. It thus comes as no surprise that irrigation expansion has played a central role in tripling the world grain harvest over the last six decades.

During the last half of the twentieth century, the world’s irrigated area expanded from close to 250 million acres (100 million hectares) in 1950 to roughly 700 million in 2000. This near tripling of world irrigation within 50 years was historically unique. But since then the growth in irrigation has come to a near standstill, expanding only 10 percent between 2000 and 2010.

In looking at water and our future, we face many questions and few answers. Could the world be facing peak water? Or has it already peaked?

Farmers get their irrigation water either from rivers or from underground aquifers. Historically, beginning with the Sumerians some 6,000 years ago, irrigation water came from building dams across rivers, creating reservoirs that then enabled them to divert the water onto the land through a network of gravity-fed canals. This method of irrigation prevailed until the second half of the twentieth century, where with few sites remaining for building dams, the prospects for expanding surface irrigation faded. Farmers then turned to drilling wells to tap underground water resources.

In doing so, they learned that there are two types of aquifers: those that are replenishable through rainfall, which are in the majority, and those that consist of water laid down eons ago, and thus do not recharge. The latter, known as fossil aquifers, include two strategically important ones, the deep aquifer under the North China Plain and the Ogallala aquifer under the U.S. Great Plains.

Tapping underground water resources helped expand world food production, but as the demand for grain continued climbing, so too did the amount of water pumped. Eventually the extraction of water began to exceed the recharge of aquifers from precipitation, and water tables began to fall. And then wells begin to go dry. In effect, overpumping creates a water-based food bubble, one that will burst when the aquifer is depleted and the rate of pumping is necessarily reduced to the rate of recharge.

Today some 18 countries, containing half the world’s people, are overpumping their aquifers. Among these are the big three grain producers—China, India and the U.S.—and several other populous countries, including Iran, Pakistan and Mexico.

During the last couple of decades, several of these countries have overpumped to the point that aquifers are being depleted and wells are going dry. They have passed not only peak water, but also peak grain production. Among the countries whose use of water has peaked and begun to decline are Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. In these countries peak grain has followed peak water.

Nowhere are falling water tables and the shrinkage of irrigated agriculture more dramatic than in Saudi Arabia, a country as water-poor as it is oil-rich. After the Arab oil export embargo in 1973, the Saudis realized they were vulnerable to a counter-embargo on grain. To become self-sufficient in wheat, they developed a heavily subsidized irrigated agriculture based heavily on pumping water from fossil aquifers.

After being self-sufficient in wheat for over 20 years, the Saudis announced in early 2008 that, with their aquifers largely depleted, they would reduce wheat planting by one eighth each year until 2016, when production would end. By then Saudi Arabia projects it will be importing some 15 million tons of wheat, rice, corn and barley to feed its 30 million people. It is the first country to publicly project how aquifer depletion will shrink its grain harvest.

Syria, a country of 22 million people riddled by civil war, is also overpumping its underground water. Its grain production peaked in 2001 and during the years since has dropped 32 percent. It, too, is becoming heavily dependent on imported grain.

In neighboring Iraq, grain production has plateaued over the last decade. In 2012 it was dependent on the world market for two thirds of its consumption. In addition to aquifer depletion, both Syria and Iraq are also suffering from a reduced flow in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as upstream Turkey claims more water for its own use.

In Yemen, a nation of 24 million people that shares a long border with Saudi Arabia, the water table is falling by roughly six feet a year as water use outstrips aquifer recharge. With one of the world’s fastest-growing populations and with water tables falling throughout the country, Yemen is fast becoming a hydrological basket case. Grain production has fallen by nearly half over the last 40 years. By 2015, irrigated fields will be a rarity and the country will be importing virtually all of its grain. Living on borrowed water and borrowed time, Yemen could disintegrate into a group of tribal fiefdoms warring over water.

Thus in the Arab Middle East the world is seeing the collision between population growth and water supply at the regional level. For the first time in history, grain production is dropping in a geographic region with nothing in sight to arrest the decline. Because of the failure of governments in the region to mesh population and water policies, each day now brings 9,000 more people to feed and less irrigation water with which to feed them.

Other countries with much larger populations are also near or beyond peak water. In Iran, a country with 77 million people, grain production dropped 10 percent between 2007 and 2012 as irrigation wells started to go dry. One-quarter of its current grain harvest is based on overpumping. With its population growing by a million people per year, it, too, faces a day of reckoning.

Pakistan, with a population of 182 million that is growing by 3 million per year, is also mining its underground water. Most of its irrigation water comes from the Indus river system, but in the Pakistani part of the fertile Punjab plain, the drop in water tables appears to be similar to the better-known fall that is occurring in India.
Image


Observation wells near the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi showed a fall in the water table between 1982 and 2000 that ranged from three to six feet a year. In the Pakistani province of Balochistan, which borders Afghanistan, water tables around the capital, Quetta, are falling by 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) per year—pointing to the day when the city will run out of water. Sardar Riaz A. Khan, former director of Pakistan’s Arid Zone Research Institute in Quetta, reports that six of Balochistan’s seven basins have exhausted their groundwater supplies, leaving their irrigated lands barren.

In a World Bank study, water expert John Briscoe says: “Pakistan is already one of the most water-stressed countries in the world, a situation which is going to degrade into outright water scarcity due to high population growth.” He then notes that “the survival of a modern and growing Pakistan is threatened by water.”

In Mexico—home to a population of 122 million that is projected to reach 156 million by 2050—the demand for water is outstripping supply. Mexico City’s water problems are well known. Rural areas are also suffering. In the agricultural state of Guanajuato, the water table is falling by six feet or more a year. In the northwestern wheat-growing state of Sonora, farmers once pumped water from the Hermosillo aquifer at a depth of 40 feet. Today they pump from over 400 feet. Mexico may be near peak water use. Peak grain may be imminent.

In addition to these small and midsize countries, aquifer depletion now also threatens harvests in the big three grain producers—China, India and the U.S.—that together produce half of the world’s grain. The question is not whether water shortages will affect future harvests in these countries, but rather when they will do so.

Among the big three, dependence on irrigation varies widely. Some four fifths of China’s grain harvest comes from irrigated land, most of it drawing on surface water, principally the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. For India, three fifths of its grain is irrigated, mostly with groundwater. For the U.S., only one-fifth of the harvest is from irrigated land. The bulk of the grain crop is rain-fed, produced in the highly productive Midwestern Corn Belt where there is little or no irrigation.

Falling water tables are already adversely affecting harvest prospects in China, which rivals the U.S. as the world’s largest grain producer. A groundwater survey released in Beijing in 2001 indicated that the water table under the North China Plain, an area that produces half of the country’s wheat and a third of its corn, was falling fast. Overpumping has largely depleted the shallow aquifer, forcing well-drillers to turn to the region’s deep aquifer, which is not replenishable.

The survey reported that under Hebei Province in the heart of the North China Plain, the average level of the deep aquifer was dropping nearly 10 feet per year. Around some cities in the province, it was falling twice as fast. He Qingcheng, head of the groundwater monitoring team, notes that as the deep aquifer is depleted, the region is losing its last water reserve—its only safety cushion.

In 2010, He Qingcheng reported that Beijing was drilling down 1,000 feet to reach an aquifer, five times deeper than 20 years ago. His concerns are mirrored in the unusually strong language of a World Bank report on China’s water situation that foresees “catastrophic consequences for future generations” unless water use and supply can quickly be brought back into balance.

As serious as water shortages are in China, they are even more alarming in India, where the margin between food consumption and survival is so precarious. In India, whose population is growing by 15 million per year, irrigation depends heavily on underground water. And since there are no restrictions on well drilling, farmers have drilled more than 27 million irrigation wells and are pumping vast amounts of underground water.

In this global epicenter of well drilling, pumps powered by heavily subsidized electricity are dropping water tables at an alarming rate. Among the states most affected are Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat in the north and Tamil Nadu in the south. In North Gujarat the water table is falling by 20 feet per year. In Tamil Nadu, a state of 72 million people, water tables are falling everywhere. Kuppannan Palanisami of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University noted in 2004 that 95 percent of the wells owned by small farmers have dried up, reducing the irrigated area in the state by half over the preceding decade.

India’s grain harvest has been expanding rapidly in recent years, but in part for the wrong reason, namely massive overpumping. A World Bank study estimates that 15 percent of India’s food supply is produced by mining groundwater. Stated otherwise, 175 million Indians are now fed with grain produced with the unsustainable use of water. As early as 2004, Fred Pearce reported in New Scientist that “half of India’s traditional hand-dug wells and millions of shallower tube wells have already dried up, bringing a spate of suicides among those who rely on them. Electricity blackouts are reaching epidemic proportions in states where half of the electricity is used to pump water from depths of up to a kilometer.”

As India’s water tables fall, larger farmers are using modified oil-drilling technology to reach water, going as deep as 1,000 feet in some locations. In communities where underground water sources have dried up entirely, all agriculture is now rain-fed and drinking water must be trucked in. Tushaar Shah of the International Water Management Institute says of India’s water situation: “When the balloon bursts, untold anarchy will be the lot of rural India.”

In the U.S., farmers are over-pumping in the Great Plains, including in several leading grain-producing states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. In these states, irrigation has not only raised wheat yields but it has also enabled a shift from wheat to corn, a much higher-yielding crop. Kansas, for example, long known as the leading wheat state, now produces more corn than wheat.

Irrigated agriculture has thrived in these states, but the water is drawn from the Ogallala aquifer, a huge underground water body that stretches from Nebraska southwards to the Texas Panhandle. It is, unfortunately, a fossil aquifer, one that does not recharge. Once it is depleted, the wells go dry and farmers either go back to dryland farming or abandon farming altogether, depending on local conditions.

In Texas, a large grain and cattle state, whose northern part overlies the shallow end of the Ogallala, irrigated grain area peaked in 1975. Since then it has shrunk by two-thirds, with the most precipitous drop in recent years. In Kansas the peak came in 1982 and irrigated grain area has since fallen 41 percent. Nebraska, now also a leading corn-producing state, saw its irrigated area peak most recently, in 2007. Even though aquifer depletion is reducing grain output in several key states, it is not yet sufficient to reduce the overall U.S. grain harvest, the bulk of which is produced in the rain-fed Midwestern Corn Belt.

At the international level, water conflicts, such as the one in the Nile river basin between Egypt and the upstream countries, make the news. But within countries it is the competition for water between cities and farms that preoccupies political leaders. Indeed, in many countries farmers now face not only a shrinking water supply as aquifers are pumped dry, but also a shrinking share of that shrinking supply.

Image


In large areas of the U.S., such as the southern Great Plains and the Southwest, virtually all water is now spoken for. The growing water needs of major cities and thousands of small towns often can be satisfied only by taking water from agriculture. As the value of water rises, more farmers are selling their irrigation rights to cities, letting their land dry up. Hardly a day goes by without the announcement of a new sale. Half or more of all sales are by individual farmers or their irrigation districts to cities and municipalities.

In the largest farm-to-city water transfer in U.S. history, farmers in California’s highly productive Imperial Valley agreed in 2003 to send San Diego County enough water to meet the household needs of close to one million people each year. The agreement spans 45 years. This could reduce food production in the Imperial Valley, a huge vegetable garden not only for California, but for countless other markets as well. Writing from the area in the New York Times, Felicity Barringer notes that many fear that “a century after Colorado River water allowed this land to be a cornucopia, unfettered urban water transfers could turn it back into a desert.”

Colorado, with a fast-growing population, has one of the world’s most active water markets. Cities and towns of all sizes are buying irrigation water rights from farmers and ranchers. In the Arkansas river basin, which occupies the southeastern quarter of the state, Colorado Springs and Aurora (a suburb of Denver) have already bought water rights to one-third of the basin’s farmland. Aurora has purchased rights to water that was once used to irrigate 19,000 acres of cropland in the Arkansas valley. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 400,000 acres of farmland dried up statewide between 2000 and 2005.

Colorado is not alone in losing irrigation water. Farmers in rural India are also losing their irrigation water to cities. This is strikingly evident in Chennai (formerly Madras), a city of 9 million on the east coast. As a result of the city government’s inability to supply water to many of its people, a thriving tank-truck industry has emerged that buys water from nearby farmers and hauls it to the city’s thirsty residents.

For farmers near cities, the market price of water typically far exceeds the value of the crops they can produce with it. Unfortunately the 13,000 privately owned tank trucks hauling water to Chennai are mining the region’s underground water resources. As water tables fall, eventually even the deeper wells will go dry, depriving rural communities of both their food supply and their livelihood.

In the competition for water between farmers on the one hand and cities and industries on the other, farmers always lose. The economics do not favor agriculture. In countries such as China, where industrial development and the jobs associated with it are an overriding national economic goal, agriculture is becoming the residual claimant on the water supply.

Where virtually all water has been claimed, cities can typically get more water only by taking it from irrigation. Countries then import grain to offset the loss of irrigated grain production. Since it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain, importing grain is the most efficient way to import water. Thus trading in grain futures is, in a sense, trading in water futures. To the extent that there is a world water market, it is embodied in the world grain market.

We can now see how overpumping, whether in the Middle East or the U.S. Great Plains, can lead to aquifer depletion and shrinking grain harvests. In short, peak water can lead to peak grain. For some countries this is no longer merely a theoretical possibility. It is a reality.

Thus far, aquifer depletion has translated into shrinking harvests only in smaller countries in the Middle East. When we look at middle-sized countries such as Iran, Mexico and Pakistan, with tightening water supplies, we see that Iran is already in deep trouble. It is feeling the effects of shrinking water supplies from overpumping. Pakistan may also have reached peak water. If so, peak grain may not be far behind. In Mexico, the water supply may have already peaked. With less water for irrigation, Mexico may be on the verge of a downturn in its grain harvest.

In summarizing prospects for the three big grain producers—the U.S., China and India—we see sharp contrasts. In the U.S., the irrigated grainland is starting to shrink largely as a result of depletion of the Ogallala aquifer, making it more difficult to rapidly increase overall grain production.

China, with four-fifths of its grain harvest coming from irrigated land, relies heavily on irrigation, but it is largely river water. A notable exception to this is the all-important North China Plain which relies heavily on underground water. With tight water supplies in northern China and with cities claiming more irrigation water, the shrinking water supply will likely reduce the harvest in some local situations. And before long it could more than offset production gains, leading to an absolute decline in China’s grain harvest.

Of the big three countries, the one most vulnerable to overpumping is India. Three-fifths of its grain harvest comes from irrigated land. And since only a minor share of its irrigation water comes from rivers, India is overwhelmingly dependent on underground water. Its millions of wells, each powered with a diesel engine or electric motor, are dropping water tables at an alarming rate. Accurate data are hard to come by, but India may have already passed peak water. The question is, will peak water be followed by peak grain or is there enough unrealized technological potential remaining to raise yields enough to offset any imminent losses from wells going dry?

The world has quietly transitioned into a situation where water, not land, has emerged as the principal constraint on expanding food supplies. There is a large area of land that could produce food if water were available.

Water scarcity is not our only challenge. Just as harvests are shrinking in some countries because of aquifer depletion, they are shrinking in other countries because of soil erosion. Among the more dramatic examples are Mongolia and Lesotho, which have each seen their grain area shrink as a result of soil erosion. And as a result of overplowing and overgrazing, two huge new dust bowls are forming in the world today, one in northwest China and the other in the Sahelian region of Africa. These giant dust bowls dwarf the U.S. Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

The bottom line is that water constraints—augmented by soil erosion, the loss of cropland to nonfarm uses, a plateauing of yields in major producing areas and climate change—are making it more difficult to expand world food production. The question raised is this: is it conceivable that the negative influences on future food production could one day offset the positive ones, leading to a cessation in the world grain harvest?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests