At what point would we have to re-examine global warming?

[free spirit]

So we just have to wait and see.

Will the CO2 load already in the atmosphere give London the climate of:

• Agadir (< 10% chance)
• Barcelona (~ 80% chance)
• Rekyavik (< 10% chance)
• Murmansk (< 1% chance)

(And before anyone says "Yay! Barthelona!" - they've had to ship drinking water in in tankers the past few years...)

yes we have to wait and see I guess... or take action to minimise the risk, one of the 2.

also, I know those are supposed to be rough estimates of probability, but they're pretty misleading without actually saying for which co2 / global temperature scenario they are for. I'm guessing they'd be for the 450ppm / 2 degrees warming scenario, problem being that the chances of this scenario actually happening are now pretty remote, therefore the chances of us getting a Rekyavik like climate are IMO significantly higher than you state, and increasing with every day we do nothing.

 

[MikeMcc]

erm well, yeah, but if we properly insulated all the buildings that'd also significantly reduce the proportion of the urban heat island effect that comes from our energy usage.

IIRC though, most of the urban heat island effect actually comes from the vast swathes of black tarmac & dark roof tiles etc that absorb more of the suns heat than farmland / countryside does, combined with buildings blocking the wind and minimising the wind chill effect.

all a side issue anyway really, though obviously it does increase the localised impact of global warming particularly in terms of the impacts of heatwaves etc on crowded cities.

Unfortunately it's not going to go away, and will increase due to migration towards populated centres (look at China for examples). Until we look at (and accept) the mechanisms we are only going to really put off the eventual mess.

 

[_pH_]

IIRC though, most of the urban heat island effect actually comes from the vast swathes of black tarmac & dark roof tiles etc that absorb more of the suns heat than farmland / countryside does, combined with buildings blocking the wind and minimising the wind chill effect.

Partly, but also due to the absence/reduction of any evaporative cooling effect of vegetation (primarily trees).

Interestingly, Dr Roland Ennos at Manchester Uni has produced models that suggest that a 10% increase in broadleaved tree cover in the UK (particularly in urban areas) would mitigate climate change related temperature rises entirely, even using the 2080s/high emissions scenario.

I don't think that's too hard to achieve, certainly in the UK (not sure about globally; and I forget if Ennos's 10% holds true for the rest of the planet - probably not). And if the tree planting was aimed at increasing sustainable silviculture with the products used in construction this should help to mop up some of the CO2 in the atmosphere by removing it from the carbon cycle.

I don't know why we don't use more timber in domestic construction tbh. It's an obvious choice, low embedded energy, sustainable, mitigation effects on climate change. Win win really.

 

[matt m]

Interesting Monbiot article on G8 targets and selling on your national responsibilities:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/07/14/pulling-yourself-off-the-ground-by-your-whiskers/

The article was written using draft information: can anyone here confirm that the proposed targets were indeed the ones the G8 adopted?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://bcmoney-mobiletv.com/view/348/george-carlin-on-global-warming/

 

[Jonti]

Save the planet?

Are these people kidding me?! We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I also like the line something like...

'The planet's been around something like 4 billion years. We've been here one hundred, maybe two hundred thousand years. We've been doing heavy industry maybe 200 years. And we have the conceit to think that we're destroying the planet?'

or

"The earth has withstood comet impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes, plate shifting, massive floods, oceans rising and receding, and we're going to destroy it with some plastic bags?'

 

[Jonti]

Yeah, planet's going to be just fine.

Still takes a great deal of perspective to see the sixth great extinction as "just one of those things".There's no biological limit to the length of time a species can exist. I think it would be mega- if homo sapiens were to stick around for a few million years or so.

 

[IMR]

I also like the line something like...

'The planet's been around something like 4 billion years. We've been here one hundred, maybe two hundred thousand years. We've been doing heavy industry maybe 200 years. And we have the conceit to think that we're destroying the planet?'

or

"The earth has withstood comet impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes, plate shifting, massive floods, oceans rising and receding, and we're going to destroy it with some plastic bags?'

'Destroying the planet' is a common compression of ecologists' concerns, but even the most neurotic deep Green probably doesn't think humanity is actually going to blow the Earth into little pieces.

 

[contadino]

So we just have to wait and see.

Will the CO2 load already in the atmosphere give London the climate of:

• Agadir (< 10% chance)
• Barcelona (~ 80% chance)
• Rekyavik (< 10% chance)
• Murmansk (< 1% chance)

(And before anyone says "Yay! Barthelona!" - they've had to ship drinking water in in tankers the past few years...)

Maybe you should include another option:

- Atlantis

Forget the temperature. The vast majority of London will be underwater with a 50m rise in sea level.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

'Destroying the planet' is a common compression of ecologists' concerns, but even the most neurotic deep Green probably doesn't think humanity is actually going to blow the Earth into little pieces.

What does 'destroy the planet', actually mean?

 

[matt m]

What does 'destroy the planet', actually mean?

Well, I don't generally use those words because it's the cost to human life that scares me most about global warming, but if I did, it'd be as a general shorthand for "rendering the planet inhospitable or, worst case, uninhabitable for humans and other species".

Or as a quick way of referring to a big bundle of things that are mainly - but not exclusively - linked to global warming and its consequences: various animal and plant species becoming extinct; rising sea levels; crop failures; worsening access to clean drinking water; drought and famine; population displacement etc etc

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As George Carlin also pointed out: 90% of the terrestrial species that ever lived, are now extinct. The vast majority of them got that way without human help. Extinction is something that nature does.

 

[IMR]

All of the books ever written and all of the paintings ever made will eventually be lost to accidents and decay.

But does that mean it'd be okay to fail to keep libraries and galleries in good repair, so their roofs let in the rain, or they're more likely to catch fire?

 

[IMR]

What does 'destroy the planet', actually mean?

If you come across someone using the phrase in an earnest way, ask them.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

All of the books ever written and all of the paintings ever made will eventually be lost to accidents and decay.

But does that mean it'd be okay to fail to keep libraries and galleries in good repair, so their roofs let in the rain, or they're more likely to catch fire?

No, but I'd like to find out what reasonable measures are necessary, as opposed to listening to a hue and cry to make the expenditure to keep each painting in its own private Fort Knox facility.

 

[IMR]

No, but I'd like to find out what reasonable measures are necessary, as opposed to listening to a hue and cry to make the expenditure to keep each painting in its own private Fort Knox facility.

In some cases something like that already happens, i.e. animal species which may only survive because they're kept in zoos and become part of captive breeding programs.

Sometimes I get a slightly queasy feeling when there's a lot of ooh-ing and aah-ing over a new batch of panda cubs or whatever, while straightforward things could be done to prevent children in poor countries going blind from water-borne infections (for example). I'm not into sentimentality over individual animals. But species conservation seems worthwhile imo.

 

[spring-peeper]

In some cases something like that already happens, i.e. animal species which may only survive because they're kept in zoos and become part of captive breeding programs.

Sometimes I get a slightly queasy feeling when there's a lot of ooh-ing and aah-ing over a new batch of panda cubs or whatever, while straightforward things could be done to prevent children in poor countries going blind from water-borne infections (for example). I'm not into sentimentality over individual animals. But species conservation seems worthwhile imo.

Why?

Why would you want the remaining animals of species to be subjected to those conditions?

What happens when we can no longer look after them? They die anyway.

I'm a strong believer in "we don't know what we are doing, so leave it to mother nature".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In some cases something like that already happens, i.e. animal species which may only survive because they're kept in zoos and become part of captive breeding programs.

Sometimes I get a slightly queasy feeling when there's a lot of ooh-ing and aah-ing over a new batch of panda cubs or whatever, while straightforward things could be done to prevent children in poor countries going blind from water-borne infections (for example). I'm not into sentimentality over individual animals. But species conservation seems worthwhile imo.

I like species conservation too. I like pandas and giraffes and rhinos as much at the next person.

But if things were different, it would be megatherium and aurochs that we were trying to save. I think we all want the world of our childhood. We want to keep it that way forever. But from the earliest times, all the planet and the biosphere has done, is change, constantly.

 

[Jonti]

Sure; but that's not news.

The point is live in a way that benefits the quality of life on earth, including its wonderful diversity. It's not an either/or choice between preservation of nature and economic development. We need both ...

Edward O. Wilson, internationally regarded as the dean of biodiversity studies, conducts us on a tour through time, traces the processes that create new species in bursts of adaptive radiation, and points out the cataclysmic events that have disrupted evolution and diminished global diversity over the past 600 million years.

The five enormous natural blows to the planet (such as meteorite strikes and climatic changes) required 10 to 100 million years of evolutionary repair.

The sixth great spasm of extinction on earth--caused this time entirely by humans--may be the one that breaks the crucible of life. Wilson identifies this crisis in countless ecosystems around the globe: coral reefs, grasslands, rain forests, and other natural habitats. Drawing on a variety of examples such as the decline of bird populations in the United States, the extinction of many species of freshwater fish in Africa and Asia, and the rapid disappearance of flora and fauna as the rain forests are cut down, he poignantly describes the death throes of the living world's diversity--projected to decline as much as 20 percent by the year 2020.

The Diversity of Life

 

[IMR]

Why?

Why would you want the remaining animals of species to be subjected to those conditions?

What happens when we can no longer look after them? They die anyway.

I'm a strong believer in "we don't know what we are doing, so leave it to mother nature".

Your last sentence suggests that current animal extinctions are nothing to do with human activities, and that they are simply melting away of their own accord like snowmen when the sun comes out.

This is not the case.

As for animals being 'subjected' to zoo life, zoos have come a long way since the days of the zookeeper with the cigarette glued to his lower lip, chucking a fish to a sealion with the words "There you go, ya bugger".

Plus a lot of captive breeding programs have reintroducing the animals to the wild as their eventual goal.

 

[spring-peeper]

Your last sentence suggests that current animal extinctions are nothing to do with human activities, and that they are simply melting away of their own accord like snowmen when the sun comes out.

This is not the case.

polar bears

As for animals being 'subjected' to zoo life, zoos have come a long way since the days of the zookeeper with the cigarette glued to his lower lip, chucking a fish to a sealion with the words "There you go, ya bugger".

Plus a lot of captive breeding programs have reintroducing the animals to the wild as their eventual goal.

I've seen shows about zoos and the good they do. My children go to "biodomes". The last time I did the "zoo" tours was in Florida - Busch Gardens and Seaworld. At Seaworld, I saw several zookeepers chuck a fish to a sealion. The animals got them for performing their tricks. The walrus was wearing a funny costume - everyone laughed.

I've also read stories of animals dying in zoos for various reasons. Most times it can be put down to "we did not what we were doing." I suppose that a case could be made that these animals deaths were necessary - so we can learn how to keep these animals locked up and prevent other such tragedies.

Zoos are not the only places that animals are reproduced for integration back into the wild.

 

[IMR]

I suppose that you feel that these animals deaths were necessary - so we can learn how to keep these animals locked up and prevent other such tragedies.

No I don't, and don't personalise the argument, thank you.

 

[IMR]

Zoos are not the only places that animals are reproduced for integration back into the wild.

Yes, there are safari parks, for instance.

But they are examples of people doing something about a situation, rather than just saying 'que sera, sera'.

A similar line against complacency was taken decades ago with initiatives to set up national parks in many different countries.

 

[spring-peeper]

No I don't, and don't personalise the argument, thank you.

It wasn't meant to be person and I didn't intend it to be a personal attack.

I went back and modified the post so that it is less offensive to you.

 

[spring-peeper]

Yes, there are safari parks, for instance.

But they are examples of people doing something about a situation, rather than just saying 'que sera, sera'.

A similar line against complacency was taken decades ago with initiatives to set up national parks in many different countries.

Here is a government report on species that are being re-introduced into the wild. A fair number of projects are listed, along with the problems faced. Zoos and sarfari parks were not listed as places being used to raise the animals.

Captive breeding 'weakens' beasts is a BBC article that outlines different problems with the breeding programs.

 

[IMR]

Both your links above point to the same article, about projects in Canada. It's an interesting article, by the way.

 

[IMR]

Zoos and sarfari parks were not listed as places being used to raise the animals.

They are in Britain, eg

http://www.zsl.org/zsl-whipsnade-zoo/news/first-wild-breeding-success-for-whipsnade-corncrakes,73,NS.html

 

[IMR]

According to the Smithsonian National Zoological Park website:

Species Survival Program: Since each zoo typically has space for only a limited number of animals of each species, maintaining healthy populations requires zoos to manage their collections as cooperatively breeding populations.

In North America, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums coordinates the Species Survival Program. Similar programs have developed in other regions of the world (for example, the Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria's Australasian Species Management Program, and the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria's European Endangered Species Programmes).

From http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/EndangeredSpecies/CapBreedPops/default.cfm

 

[grit]

Not going to add much to the discussion other than whenever I hear people talk about global warming I think of this