The above question was spawned by the findings of a recent Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA umbrella) report, which state that we're living in nearly the hottest temperatures in over 1 million years, and that regardless of the cause, it's getting hotter. The article below makes great efforts to represent that the findings focus on the rise in temperature, which most scientists agree on, but only speculate about its cause(s).

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060925/D8KC62R00.html

Quote :

"Global Temperature Highest in Millennia WASHINGTON (AP) - The planet's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years, warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit per decade for the last 30 years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current interglacial period, which began about 12,000 years ago. The researchers noted that a report in the journal Nature found that 1,700 plant, animal and insect species moved poleward at an average rate of about 4 miles per decade in the last half of the 20th century. The warming has been stronger in the far north, where melting ice and snow expose darker land and rocks beneath allowing more warmth from the sun to be absorbed, and more over land than water. Water changes temperature more slowly than land because of its great capacity to hold heat, but the researchers noted that the warming has been marked in the Indian and western Pacific Oceans. Those oceans have a major effect on climate and warming that could lead to more El Nino episodes affecting the weather. "This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made pollution," Hansen said in a statement. Few scientists doubt that the planet has warmed, though some question the causes of the change. Hansen, who first warned of the danger of climate change decades ago, said that human-made greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate change factor. The study said the recent warming has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius - 1.8 degree Fahrenheit - of the maximum temperature of the past million years. "If further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know. The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today," Hansen said."

What does everyone think causes the globe's temperature to rise and fall?

'Global Warming' = Bullshit Crowd
Hypothetically granting that global warming isn't significantly caused by human pollution, what steps ought to be taken to secure the world's infrastructure from the encroaching sea levels forecasted by the steady increase in temperature from natural processes?

'Global Warming' Might Be Bullshit Crowd
Hypothetically granting that global warming is caused by natural factors and artificial pollutants, what steps ought to be taken to secure the world's infrastructure from the forecasted encroaching sea levels and climate-alterations of warming?

'Global Warming' Is Real And Significant Crowd
Hypothetically granting that human pollutants contribute to so-called global warming, what steps do you propose we take to mitigate its climate-changing effects?

In other words, to all three crowds, suppose that we were able to confirm that the world were getting hotter at minimum. And that it's procession was irreversible, what steps ought we take from there? Instead of bitching over who's right about the specific causes, let's just assume the effects were going to come true.

9/26/2006 10:49:46 AM

the sun does.

9/26/2006 11:31:42 AM

Well, discounting 3 million years ago, since it was 3 million years ago, in the 20th century the temperature has gone up 2 to 3 degrees and the oceans rose something like 7 feet.

So, what should be done? Well, what needs to be done? If factories need to be moved north, that is up to the factory owners, give them a call and ask them. If farms need to move north, again, that is up to the farm owners, give them a call and ask them.

If the ocean is rising, well, I guess you should call the mayor and have him ask the city engineers to check the height of the sea walls in 50 to 70 years to make sure they are still high enough.

I guess the insurance companies should be notified, they probably want to raise the rates on insufficiently protected ocean-front homes.

But other than that, what could the government need to do? Well, except for any ocean-front property owned by congress; I suspect their insurance rates are going to go up; the government needs to budget for that.

The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?

9/26/2006 11:34:40 AM

The American people have also experienced incredible hardships that should never be allowed to repeat.

9/26/2006 11:41:00 AM

Quote :

"And that it's procession was irreversible, what steps ought we take from there?"

Assuming that, there's nothing we can do. Or nothing that would be worthwhile. Sure we could implement technologies to hopefully slow the procress, but if you do that too fast, you run into what to do with the current technologies.

Say tomorrow, we could give every person in the world a solar powered car that runs even in the worst of conditions. What do we do with all the current cars? Scap them? Where would we put them? If we decided to dissasemble them and reuse as much as we could, how much extra power and CO2 would we be using then? Honestly there isn't much that can be done except let humanity and nature take it's course.

Now, if the government wanted to be proactive, they need to stop punishing for doing bad and rewarding for doing good. More tax credits to EVERYONE who starts adopting energy efficient/renewable energy solutions. If hybrid cars are the current stopgap, give tax credits for purchases of hybrid cars, new and used. Let people write off the $64,000 PV system to power their homes. None of this write 15% of the value off your taxes thing. If the government is serious, then let the people write the whole thing off.

But in the end, if you say it can't be undone, then it's all for naught. Personaly I think it can be undone, but it's nothing that any of us or likely any of our great great grandchildren will see. This is a big system and changes happen slowly and sometimes for reasons we don't always see.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 11:53 AM. Reason : hlkj]

9/26/2006 11:51:30 AM

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentrations

Pre Industrial Revolution

280 ppm

Today

381 ppm

9/26/2006 11:59:42 AM

9/26/2006 12:13:32 PM

Quote :

"Hypothetically granting that human pollutants contribute to so-called global warming"

i dont get how the non global warming crowd doesnt see how this is true

like we burn a lot of gas and oil, how do we NOT pollute the earth and cause it to get hotter

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2006 12:17:21 PM

whatever we do (the United States) can't prevent China or other sovereign nations from limiting their emissions

course in the 70s there was the big idea of "global cooling" which was supposedly going to cause an ice age real soon

9/26/2006 12:18:12 PM

^ Ahh yes, the implication that we shouldn't trust current scientific knowledge because scientists have been shown to be wrong in the past. Brilliant.

9/26/2006 12:32:30 PM

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 12:35 PM. Reason : flawless]

9/26/2006 12:35:11 PM

^^nice way to completely ignore the first part of my post which has absolutely nothing to do with science, but more to do with the FACT that we can't really do shit to prevent what a massive country like China does with its emissions

9/26/2006 12:43:31 PM

you people.

10,000 years ago americans were saying global cooling was the big problem.

9/26/2006 12:46:02 PM

well 30 years ago they were saying that

9/26/2006 12:47:23 PM

Quote :

"Ahh yes, the implication that we shouldn't trust current scientific knowledge because scientists have been shown to be wrong in the past. Brilliant."

Ahh yes, the implication that we should fully accept all current scientific knowledge because scientists now realize they were wrong in the past. Therefore they must truly now what they are doing now. Brilliant.

9/26/2006 12:47:29 PM

hey, Computer Science majors are really informed about global climate change, I mean its part of their course study right

9/26/2006 12:48:14 PM

Quote :

"well 30 years ago they were saying that "

how would you know. you were dead.

9/26/2006 12:51:07 PM

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

They've always reacted to changes, not responding to them proactively.

Would you agree or disagree that science has progressed in refining its understanding of the patterns of global heating and cooling?

9/26/2006 1:00:27 PM

^^i was dead 30 years ago? was i resurrected between then and now?

Quote :

"Would you agree or disagree that science has progressed in refining its understanding of the patterns of global heating and cooling? "

I think the understanding is about the same

9/26/2006 1:01:23 PM

Quote :

"Would you agree or disagree that science has progressed in refining its understanding of the patterns of global heating and cooling?"

I would agree.

I would also agree that science has progressed in refinig its evidence as well.

9/26/2006 1:11:25 PM

A big difference between 30 years ago and now is the amount and sophistication and accuracy of satellites measuring things like temperature and sea levels and a host of other variables about or environment. Studies like this one aren't based off imagination, they're based off of a whole host of evidence.

It's retarded to just wave it all off, without pointing out what's flawed with the data they're using. That's the whole reason this stuff is published in journals, to go through the peer review process. It isn't like politics when the info you need is wrapped up in top secret notebooks.

9/26/2006 1:13:59 PM

if Global Warming isnt a problem then killing babies should be ok

9/26/2006 1:20:06 PM

^^ & ^^^ Excellent observations.

^ Explain your reasoning. I'm a little confused.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 1:22:12 PM

Quote :

"'Global Warming' Might Be Bullshit Crowd Hypothetically granting that global warming is caused by natural factors and artificial pollutants, what steps ought to be taken to secure the world's infrastructure from the forecasted encroaching sea levels and climate-alterations of warming?"

Nothing. I mean, in the next millenium or so we should start moving our civilization away from the coast and towards what will become the coast. It isn't going to happen all at once, so we can adapt. When buildings need to be replaced, simply move build new ones farther in land. We can reduce our actions that cause extra-warming, but there's no need for us to think that we can stop the world's natural progression from ice age to heating. If we do, we're likely to cause bigger problems than would be caused by just adapting.

9/26/2006 1:23:59 PM

What kinds of eminent domain issues are raised by that?

What economic impacts would it have?

How much of even our nation's infrastructures and population centers are on low-lying areas along the coast?

I have yet to see anyone post any kind of Day After Tomorrow type of scenario, so we can pretty well ignore the idea that anything resembling an instantanous catastrophe will happen. Unless you start counting comets and asteroids, that is.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 1:26:15 PM

None, really. IMHO, private enterprises would see this coming and decide that the investment in building close to an approaching ocean would not be justified. Therefore, they would not build it when the risk of approaching waters grew to an unacceptable level. They would buy land elsewhere and build it. As for the public lands, they'll have the same issues they have now with building new buildings. They will either find available land or exercise domain.

We aren't OUT of land right now. There's plenty of cheap land for us to move onto in the center of the country. We'll buy it from the current owners.

9/26/2006 1:29:08 PM

Quote :

"A big difference between 30 years ago and now is the amount and sophistication and accuracy of satellites measuring things like temperature and sea levels and a host of other variables about or environment. Studies like this one aren't based off imagination, they're based off of a whole host of evidence."

I agree, but you have to be open to the idea that measuring devices and scientific tools of the future will yield information that discredits any current theories that were derived by comparatively primitive tools. You still have to work in the here and now though. All you can really do is work with what are the current best theories and trust that science is converging on reality.

9/26/2006 1:30:27 PM

And what are the social and political impacts of such cultural migration?

9/26/2006 1:30:47 PM

After your edit, I have more answers to some of it.

Economic impact could be substantial, but I wouldn't say devestating. I mean it will cost private enterprise a lot of money to move in-land, but we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of years here. That's a tiny fraction of the world economy over that time period.

On the question of how much of our infrastructure...its a lot. In geology class we looked at some climate models, but its too varied to tell exactly how it would play out yet.

9/26/2006 1:30:50 PM

Quote :

"And what are the social and political impacts of such cultural migration?"

You may be legitimately interested in this, but I think you're starting to reach here.

I mean, there really is no difference in this and suburbanization or any other cultural migration pattern. This will simply be another one with similar consequences.

9/26/2006 1:35:29 PM

advances in technology in the last 30 years dont do anything to change the fact that science is still trying to figure out a 4 billion year flucuation trend based on 30 years of very accurate sample data

not a large enough sample group according to anyone who's taken a rudimentary statistics course

9/26/2006 1:39:03 PM

9/26/2006 1:41:45 PM

I am by no means saying that this is the cause of global warming, I'm just more interested in the answer to this question more than the answer to the question of "will mountain folk adjust to being beach bums"

Has the earth's orbit maintained the same average distance from the sun over the years? I understand that there are times in the year where the earth is further away from the sun than at other times. I'm referring more to the average distance. Ie. The earth is moving away/toward the earth at a rate of 3 inches per century. Maybe the earth tilts more on it's axis now such that the ice caps are exposed to increased amounts of daylight. Maybe the rate of change in axis tilt can be measured over time.

Just saying.

9/26/2006 1:42:55 PM

Quote :

"not a large enough sample group according to anyone who's taken a rudimentary statistics course"

9/26/2006 1:43:34 PM

Rudimentary statistics gives us the Margin of Error. Funny that I don't see anyone disputing that such a margin exists in any of the examples...

9/26/2006 1:46:21 PM

^^^ Yes, that is why the Sahara desert is today a desert instead of the jungle it was 7000 years ago.

But no, the axis has not changed much since and is not expected to change again for another several thousand years.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ^]

9/26/2006 1:47:10 PM

Quote :

"Funny that I don't see anyone disputing that such a margin exists in any of the examples..."

the Earth is ~4,000,000,000 years old

we've had this great technology-assisted data for the last ~30 years

a 30 year sample of a 4,000,000,000 is virtually nothing when trying to understand the overall system of how the Earth works and its cycles, processes, etc

9/26/2006 1:49:34 PM

How are global warming and terrorism the same?

both could kill me but neither really make much of a difference to me and my life as a individual.

9/26/2006 1:49:53 PM

Hilariously untrue. What have you internalized since 9/11? What climate changes produced the world you live in?

^^ And what disputes the text you quoted?

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 1:51:18 PM

ha i was just trying to get a rise out of treetwista

9/26/2006 1:55:17 PM

lawl that's not too tough

9/26/2006 1:56:20 PM

Gamecat are you honestly trying to tell me that you think 30 years worth of data is any kind of decent indicator of the processes that fuel a 4 billion year old system?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215781,00.html

Quote :

"Earth Warmest Its Been in 12,000 Years"

oh wait...that link is from Faux News so its not true, I guess the Earth isnt the warmest its been in 12,000 years since its Faux News

9/26/2006 2:05:25 PM

Of course I am. The data has only been gathered for 30 years, but it doesn't represent 30 years worth of data. You're being silly.

9/26/2006 2:06:19 PM

^what????

9/26/2006 2:07:11 PM

hahaha the data garthered since 1970 isnt just data on temp thats happened between 1970 and now.

hahahahaahha

9/26/2006 2:09:28 PM

Climatologist gathers a 3 billion year-old fossil today.

That fossil represents:

a) 30 years of data
b) 3 billion years of data
c) orange
d) none of the above

9/26/2006 2:09:58 PM

ok so how many years does it go back?

take that answer, divide it by 4,000,000,000 and multiply it by 100 to get the percentage of time we have data for in the Earth's history

then go take a basic statistics class and get back to me after that

^please to give one single example of a 3-billion year old fossil with any type of useful data in it...take all the time you need

9/26/2006 2:10:45 PM

4,000,000,000 years ago the earth was a rock with nothing on it. You're extending the fuck out of this because the Earth didnt have a similar atmopshere as now untill waaaaay after that.



[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : !]

9/26/2006 2:10:57 PM

^^ They've got some pretty fucking old fossils and core samples. Quite a big number of them. Rather modern and extensive equipment with which to measure very important details about them as well. They only get better at extracting more information from less data over time, too.

Why are you arguing for a greater quantity of information over greater quality of it?

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 2:11:53 PM

12,000 years /= 4,000,000,000 years

Quote :

"They've got some pretty fucking old fossils and core samples"

thats about the quantitative and cited example i'd expect you to give

9/26/2006 2:12:28 PM