How to combat climate change is a highly politicized issue worldwide. For many, the arguments surrounding global warming and the ways to combat it can be convoluted and confusing.
Delivering the first of the Sydney Ideas lectures for 2010, world-renowned climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer outlines the evidence for global warming and explains how it was gathered.
Bio
Michael Oppenheimer
Michael Oppenheimer is a Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University. He was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2001 and 2007 respectively.
Before joining the faculty at Princeton, he spent 20 years as chief scientist at The Environmental Defense Fund.
Is the Earth really heating up? Climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer forecasts 2010 as a probable "cooling decade," but anticipates an increase of up to 7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. "Not every decade is going to be necessarily warmer than the decade before," he says. "It's a long term phenomenon."
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.27.2 °F (1.84.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
We can get off most fossil fuels within 20-30 years if we put a concerted effort into solar, wind, fuel cells, electric cars, algae biofuels, and new nuclear technologies.
We also need a new national smart power grid to move electricity.
We can use a carbon tax on fossil fuels to pay for it, and it'll provide millions of JOBS that can't be exported.
Europe & China are ALREADY doing this and America will lose out in future green energy technologies, if we don't.
We owe it to our grandchildren.
I am not going to deny that the temprature of Earth has been steadily rising over the past several decades. You simply need to look at actual temprature measurements and the warming of our planet since the late 60s/early 70s is undeniable. This man does say however that you cannot denounce global warming if you have say, a decade or two of cooler average global tempratures, which I agree with. But what makes the opposite of this true? Why does 3 or 4 decades of tempratrue increase confirm an unstopable increase in global temprature for the next 100 years? I feel he is being a little hypocritacle in that regard.
I also have a problem with ice core sampeling. The entire premis of ice core sampeling is that when the air is encapsulated, it becomes a perfectaly closed system, which is simply not true. Gasses traped in the ice will become diluted over time through small quantities of liquid water passing through the air pockets, as well as the cold tempratures and pressure altering the co2 composition within the ice. The point im making is that gas pockets in old ice are not an accurate representation of ancient atmospheres.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny
Yet more BS. He says they cant say what the effects of of given temp rises may be.....What kind of scientist is he? The planet has often been warmer than his example and the effects are known. Looks like the 'warmers' are scraping the barrel when they're claiming 'cooling' means 'warming'. Scaremonger with an agenda....like the rest.
In order to accept your theories, you'll have to provide links to peer-reviewed scientific publications that support your supposition. Please?
Yet more BS. He says they cant say what the effects of of given temp rises may be.....What kind of scientist is he? The planet has often been warmer than his example and the effects are known. Looks like the 'warmers' are scraping the barrel when they're claiming 'cooling' means 'warming'. Scaremonger with an agenda....like the rest.
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF, National Science Foundation - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
As Martin Heimann writes in Science:
Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.