Scientists cool outlook on Global Warming

I happened across this article and after reading it thought that it should be posted for viewing within ATS.

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.

Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."

Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
Scientists cool outlook on Global Warming

In new study, ancient and modern evidence suggests limits to future global warming

A couple questions: Will the ongoing Global Warming belief system be challenged by this, or will it simply be dismissed? And is the issue of Global Warming simply another fearmongering scheme?

Additional information:
Paleomap Project
'There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.'
Historical CO2







seekerof

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Well, I farted today, but I ate white meat.

Well, they are using data from the past, and although I don't know the extent of their research, it could be flawed, maybe not. Thing is, I saw the last half of that PBS special on global dimming, whereas pollution particulates actually keep global warming temps in check and it's like our current worlds temperatures are the mud puddle between a tug-of-war between global warming gases and sunblocking particulates.
Thing is, the particulates, block ocean evaporation, and on this PBS documentary they explained the famine in Ethiopia and elsewhere was/is caused because of lack of ocean evaporation caused by the smokestacks of Europe blocking evaporation.
Read more about it here:
www.pbs.org...

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Toadmund]

Interesting post Seeker,

These reports, and those to the contrary tell me that we are only beginning to understand our role in global climate change. The air we breathe now, is nothing like the air breathed by the first living things on the planet.

There is evidence that these first successful micororganisms, called cyanobacteria, had a huge role in an atmospheric flip-flop. Literally "poisoning" their own planet, with OXYGEN. That stuff we use by the lungful all our lives!

Check out what the cyanobacteria have done for us.

Earth's early atmosphere

There are other factors too.
Solar output, Volcanism, the chemical reactions of exposed rocks.
These have all had major impact on global temperatures, and atmospheric composition.

So, my question is:

What is mankind's contribution to climate change? What percentage is "our fault".
Let's say we can actually put a number on it. Let's pretend we know what we can do to avoid having an effect on climate. We take measures, to reduce our contribution to almost nil. But, like it has done in the past, the climate continues to warm. What do we do then?

Do we change philosphies, and PURPOSEFULLY do things to change the climate? Is it a good idea to mess with a natural process?


We like this moderate climate, this era of "normal temperatures".
Is it our job to keep it this way forever?

Maybe we are the stewards of "temperate Earth"!





[edit on 22-4-2006 by spacedoubt]

This is just one study. There have been many more studies that have said that global warming is worse than we realize. You did'nt belive those, right? So why should I belive this one? Seekerof, Tell me why I should belive? Convince me!

[edit on 4/22/2006 by The_Time_is_now]

Originally posted by The_Time_is_now
This is just one study. There have been many more studies that have said that global warming is worse than we realize.
[edit on 4/22/2006 by The_Time_is_now]

So what if both sides of the coin have correct points.
And us humans make adjustments to our greenhouse gases.

But still the temperature rises. What do we do then?
Fix it?

Originally posted by spacedoubt

But still the temperature rises. What do we do then?
Fix it?

and that is the crux of the debate. Universal consensus is anthropogenic carbon is a contributing factor, but not the sole causal factor. So even if we completely eliminate ALL anthropogenic carbon (impossible), the climate will still warm. If we reduce our countribution by 30% (an unlikely but possible target), we will reduce total global warming by 2-3 degrees over the next century. This will still require substantial adjustments to our infrastructure and political/social/economic systems.

Reducing our contribution by 10% ( a more realistic target), will reduce total warming by far less, possibly 1-1.5 degrees at most.

So warming will occur whether humans take steps to reduce carbon output or not. Why damage the global economy and cause hardship on all the world's people (the cost of curbing carbon emissions will be greater on the poorest nations, as the developed nations can absorb the cost easier) and still face the cost of adjustment? It is cheaper for the world in the long run to simply take the long view and begin adjusting now.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Well, I farted today, but I ate white meat.

My god that's funny.

You have voted Toadmund for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

We live in a bubble, if you pump crap into the bubble, the bubble gets dirty, anything else is spin.

Why damage the global economy and cause hardship on all the world's people (the cost of curbing carbon emissions will be greater on the poorest nations, as the developed nations can absorb the cost easier) and still face the cost of adjustment?

Since when did technological innovation become a hardship? It's been thoroughly shown that investment in technology provides a net benefit to the economy. Going green on a large industrial scale will save money in the long run. Isn't that the Conservative way? Short term hardship for longterm gain? That's their logic with tax cuts afterall....

The above is both true and false at the same time, for private citizens, going green can be extremely hard, for large corporations concerned only with their bottom line, all that is needed is to show them all the various projects that other companies have done that in the end, MADE THEM RICHER!

Here are a few links to support my argument:

www.worldchanging.com...

www.theclimategroup.org...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.usgbc.org...

www.worldchanging.com...

Innovate now and have the world buy this stuff from you. Taking the wait and see approach is really not an option if you want to remain competitive in the long run.

NEways....

Do you really want to be dependant on unstable regions of the world for your fuel supply?

What if, when the next Katrina hits, Al Q. start attacking export facilities on masse worldwide? They are opportunists afterall.

The fact is, it's not just about Pollution anymore, we past that stage quite a while ago(like in the 80s). Now we have Peak Oil to worry about, Instability in oil producing countries, Increased quantity and velocity of hurricanes, increased cancer and asthma rates, etc.

We can adapt, of that I have little doubt, but when you look at all the problems our addiction causes it just makes sense to start to move beyond a century old technology.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000

We can adapt, of that I have little doubt, but when you look at all the problems our addiction causes it just makes sense to start to move beyond a century old technology.

IMO, We can and must adapt. But we'd have a better chance if we slowed things down just a tad.