Thread: Global Warming

This seems to be coming much more of an issue of late. In my work it has become more apparent to me this year, although there have been very slight changes over the last couple of years. To illustrate this see the photos below of gardens that I work in and of the late/early flowering of plants.



Spring flowering rose still blooming late Oct.



Fushias and Begonias still flowering and looking the best they have done all summer



Winter flowing Jasmine - not due to bloom until late Dec early Jan.

There are also many other examples of this as far as the plant life is concerned. Are there any visible effects in the Thai plant life?

In the UK the Stern report has just been issued although a certain amount of it has been 'leaked' over the past couple of days. And of course the politicians are jumping on the bandwagon and saying there must be more 'green taxes'. Of course this is another way of raising taxes in the UK but would the extra revenue gained be put solely to the use of controlling climate charge.

This had been already tried with the Kyoto agreement which I believe that the US refused to sign. It is no good one country trying to do something without the rest of the other countries doing the same. It is a world problem, so what can be done to solve it ?

The pathetic and sad thing about all this is that a good portion of the people who will suffer will be those who contributed little to nothing to the problem. The ones causing most of the problem (Americans) won't suffer the same fate (unfortunately).

Have you noticed that most of the leaves are still on the trees to in the south east of England

Two swallows do not a summer make.

This global warming is all bollox though isn't it ?

Who knows?

The climate has been recorded for a relatively short time-span in history.
Changes do occur naturally - that's not to say human activities have no influence on it.

Originally Posted by surasak

The Japanese Cherry trees here used to bloom in late April. Now it's early March. I still have flowers being produced on my pepper and basil plants.

[OK, this time I hit the correct button]


Really? Oh my God! We're all doomed! DOOMED I tells ya!

I remember the winter of '63. F*cking cold. There was talk of a new ice age. Don't think it happened.

Tony Blair is setting himself up to be the new EU Commissioner for Climate Change, once he's been booted out of UK politics. He'll probably be just as over-paid as his good bud Peter Mandelson, who he'll probably set up a love nest with so they can both watch Cherie Blair persue her ambition of becoming the new Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Originally Posted by surasak

The pathetic and sad thing about all this is that a good portion of the people who will suffer will be those who contributed little to nothing to the problem. The ones causing most of the problem (Americans) won't suffer the same fate (unfortunately).

In this instance I have to agree with you.

Originally Posted by daveboy

This global warming is all bollox though isn't it ?

Might be, but I have definitely noticed a difference over the past few years.

A couple of the proposed taxes by David Millibrand the Enviroment Secretary are:-

Motorists not to benifit from cheaper oil. Fuel duty would rise to keep fuel at an artifically high price.
Increase on duty for 'Chelsea tractors'
Increased landfill tax
Increasing passenger air travel tax and adding VAT

Its another way to add to the tax income under a guise of doing our bit for the enviroment

Whether or not humans are a direct or major cause of global warming remains to be seen.

But, can you honestly say that it's a good thing to keep spewing crap into the environment as we are? Nature takes a very long time to recycle naturally occurring substances (it takes decades for a tree to fall and decay back into soil, for example) and if we keep generating pollution the way we do that takes a very long time to break down it's bound to have immediate implications on us in our very short lifespans.

I doubt in our own lifetime we'll see the effect of our wasteful ways...but what about the generations that come after us?

Does my very good friend really need his V10 Ford Excursion? Wel he makes good use of it taking the whole family and friends (such as I up to Tahoe for skiing and snow boarding. Plenty of torque and 4wd to get us through the muck they call sa-no. Maybe [/b]he[b] does; he owns a large fabrication shop and makes weekly trips down to mexican town ot pick laborers off the street. He buys food in bulk for political functions and ferries local needy kids to the Zoo and camping/fishing functions. But, I have seen so many on the roads driven by tiny little women and desk jockies that can't handle the bulk of these Detroit monsters to say, for many, it's just wasteful, conspsicuous consuption.

Gasoline powered cars in California now burn so cleanly that in some areas they actually spew out cleaner air than they take in (hydrocarbon-wise, that is), and NOT just LA. The dumping of waste is so restricted as to be unnatural in the US. Wheras our governemnet supports various industries that leave their filthly mark around the world in foreign countries with impunity.

Will a hole dug for minerals the size of a city in fifty years, become a home for waterfowl fish amphpians and various flora? Or remain a scar forever? So what if a tree takes decades for a tree to turn back into soil? It is sad to see the damage wreaked by the settlers of SF did to the stately sequoia forests, these trees are truly magnificent, yet their wood was so resistent to rot that the home built with them still stand and house large groups of people. They are a curiosity, a wonerment even, but are these 3000 year old monsters truly important to humanity other than to inspire wonder in our eyes?

Old-growth Douglas fir forest being mowed down and replaced with hemlock fir a faster growing tree yet almost as strong wood, not nearly the density or beauty of grain as OG doug fir but a usuable lumber; sad, it is true. btu as humanity rushes to cover the planet how long before there are only places left for wild things that serv no purpose to our lives, will we reach the point in the distant future where all things left living are domesticated for our food, shelter and clothing?

The black rhino is dying off. So what? Throughout the history of this planet species have died off, replaced by new, more competitive ones. Recently mankind has had an influence it is true, but is it really an unnatural one? Are we not part of nature? OK, we willeventually burn up all the oil on the planet and we will adapt. I for one would miss the sound of a well tuned motor as it screams up the RPM range, reaching for peak horsepower, miss it every bit as much as I am saddened by the loss of our giant redwoods and pristine, old-growth forests.

What shall we do? Tell developing countries they cannot have the oil they meed to continue to develop because they "spew forth" too much dirty air? restrict them until they develop the wherewithal to buy, then train their people in, the technology to ensure this spewing doesn't happen? Perhaps an emabago against any countries that do not implement proper recycling policies? Maybe even fines for individuals that throw aluminum cans or plastic bottles in the trash.

Properly chipped and distributed a tree takes only a couple fo years to turn back into soil. Properly prepared waste can fuel our vehicles, feed our farms with fertilizer, and be recycled to make more machines, containers and othe manufactured goods.

But this conversation is about global warming, isn't it? What we (humans), as a whole have to do with it, is I believe, very little. Our influence is not that great we will adapt to it our perish. We will cut down more trees build more roads and even larger buildings to protect ourselves from teh the environment as it grows more hostile, the beauty of the planet being scarred somewhat, the wonder of nature turning ugly before our eyes.

Enviromentalists point out some very real concerns, that we are altering (destroying?) our environemnt is all too true. Some of this has to be accepted as a price we pay as our density increases.

These same environmentalists usuall are the ones decrying poverty and hunger, disease and pestilence, the loss of human life in places around the globe. You can't have it both ways folks. To keep the planet prsitine and "natural" either some folks gotta go, or we have to accpet the changes wrought on this planet by ourselves.

I, personally, cannot offer any quick fix or solution and am concerned for the future of humanity. I like going to wild places and I like eating venison roasted over an open fire. I like hooking a strong fish in salt water and pitting my ability against his strength. The idea of living off the land and hunting/gathering my own meals appeals to me. Jsut ain't practical, though these days.

Enviromentalists that blame "pollution" or aerosol sprays for global warming that harp on every piece of waste generated by humans, every factory, truck, car or motorcycle as a threat to the "The Planet" and a casue of global warning have always evoked reaction similar to that of the villagers where the little boy cried "Wolf!" This reaction continues to grow throughout the world.

Perhaps a bit of environmental reality is needed? We are altering our environement, we are changing the world in which we live. This will continue as long as mankind survives. perhaps we need to look at how we are going to continue to survive through the next millennia. What wil the world be like when we have 20 billion souls alive and breathing, eating, shitting, consuming?

Global warming? Wear sensible, loose, light-weight clothes. try and stay out of the sun drink liquids. it's just a silly phase the Earth is going through. we got bigger problems.

eco-nazis!

there is now more ecodiversity on this planet than ever before!

extinctions are natural part of earths history.

there does not appear to be any substantial evidence that the earth's climate is being irrevocably changed by humankind.

as FF said above - we got bigger problems to worry about.

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

there does not appear to be any substantial evidence that the earth's climate is being irrevocably changed by humankind.

Ahem.

And why is it changing?

IPCC

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC (created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN’s Environmental Programme) said in its Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995, "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." Note that "balance of evidence" is not intended to suggest unambiguous proof; it is a reference to the standards of proof required in English civil law (balance of evidence) as opposed to criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt). This statement was strengthened in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, in which the IPCC said:

• "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
• "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations [1]."

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [2], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

[edit] US National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)
[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 °C–5.8 °C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]
[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

If pollution were a simple local problem it would only affect a small number of peolpe and that's it. The smog in Bangkok, for example, doesn't affect people in Udon. A dirty khlong in Phuket has no impact on the rice farmer up in Nong Khai. A person in a villlage burning crap only bothers those nearby.

But the past few years we've been getting quite nasty air from China. In the winter the rain causes black soot to fall from the sky. The window sills get nasty and black and have to be cleaned several times every year. The car gets coated with soot and needs to be washed despite it being rainy.

Local problem for this? There are no factories anywhere near the place I live, there is no industry around that could emit soot into the prevailing winds, and, the weather satellites can now pick up pollution clouds that travel from Asia, across the Pacific, and impact our air quality. The soot is just an annoyance. What about things we cannot see?

About those deer you mention: should a hunter just go out and tag every deer he comes across? Should he be allowed to kill as many as he wants, then, just leave the carcasses out to rot (therefore depriving others of the priviledge of hunting for food, or, depriving natural wildlife of a food source)? Why is it then that we tolerate this American 'right' to burn as much gasoline as we can by being allowed to sell the most inefficient vehicles on the planet? Why is it that a small percentage of the human population produces so much pollution? Do you really think putting all those gases into the atmosphere is a good thing?

You know, someone asked me once if I could have a wish what would it be: and it was this: to be able to travel back in time to see the world as it once was before mankind came along and ruined it. I can't imagine what it would be like to see Mt. Hood perfectly crisp and clear on a winter's morning because the smog from the all the vehicles now ruins the view. I can't imagine what Florida would look like with pristine beaches not covered with expensive hurricane targets. I can't imagine how a major river would look without the stench of mankind ruining it. I wonder what it would be like to go anwhere and see the sky as it really is without all the light pollution ruining it.

Whether you believe global warming is occurring or not what is the harm in using things more efficiently and making better use of what we have? We wouldn't need to have wars in Iraq if we simply used oil more wisely.

I hate to see how dirty things will be when there's 10 billion of us, let alone, 20 billion. Maybe it's good we're living now, we might be some of the last ones to see things in a clean, pristine state. I enjoy my hikes in the wilderness for this very reason. I wonder if my grandchildren will have the same chance.

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

there does not appear to be any substantial evidence that the earth's climate is being irrevocably changed by humankind.

Ahem.

look at the scale!

its only 1 degree difference.

and thats only 140 years

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

look at the scale! its only 1 degree difference. and thats only 140 years

At the peak of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, global temperature was less than 4 degrees celcius cooler than it is today.

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

look at the scale!

its only 1 degree difference.

and thats only 140 years

Trick question: what contains more heat: a cup of water at 50 degrees C or the ocean at 50 degrees C?

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

... Was it microbe farts that altered the climate? ...

It's gotta be them. No doubt about it.

This isn't some idea being put about by bearded loonies. Current theories of global warming are part and parcel of undergraduate university courses around the world, the IPCC is composed of completely mainstream scientists and the author of the Stern report was the Chief Economist for the World Bank. It doesn't get more establishment than that. It's those who deny climate change who are the lunatic fringe.

Don't think anyone is denying climate change here. The point open for discussion is, is man made, or is it a natural occurance?

Fair enough. I should have been more precise in my language. The reality of man-made climate change is indisputable and is not doubted by any mainstream scientists working in the field. The extent of the warming which is anticipated and the levels of CO2 which can be considered safe (whether the safe limit is at 450 ppm, 500 ppm or, God forbid, the grim possibility that we have already let the djinn out of the bottle) are a matter of dispute but that our activities (mainly consumption of fossil fuels) is causing potentially catastrophic warming is not open to debate.