Will Bush change his view on global warming now

by ballistic 52 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  skyman

  Robotic rock-climber takes its first steps Quark experiment predicts heavier Higgs Record ice core gives fair forecast Gene may predict killer prostate cancers Rising damp delays speed record attempt Locusts swarms may spiral into plague All latest news • Subscribe • Renew • Change address Best live jobs in the hottest areas of sciences Cell Biology Software Engineering Genetics Analytical Chemistry Sales & Marketing Or search all of our jobs and opportunities		The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service Record ice core gives fair forecast 18:00 09 June 04 NewScientist.com news service As long as humans do not mess it up, the Earth's climate is set at fair for the next 15,000 years. That is according to information extracted from the oldest ice core ever drilled. The Antarctic core is the first to reach as far back as a warm period with characteristics similar to our own interglacial. So it should help make more accurate predictions about when to expect the next deep freeze. The ice core, drilled from a feature in central Antarctica called Dome C, is around 3 kilometres long and 10 centimetres wide. Changes in the relative proportions of hydrogen isotopes in the ice layers allow scientists to compile a complete record of Antarctic temperatures going back 740,000 years. The core shows the waxing and waning of eight ice ages. Most critically for making predictions about our climate, it is the first core to record a period known as Termination V, around 430,000 years ago. Warming pattern At this point, the world moved from a glacial period into a long, warm interglacial, similar to this era. The previous longest ice-core record, drilled by the Soviet Union at Vostok in Antarctica between 1980 and 1988, went back only 420,000 years. "All interglacials are slightly different, but we believe Termination V is the most similar to our own," says chief author of the new study, Eric Wolff, at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. It mirrors the pattern of solar warming between seasons and at different latitudes that are caused by fluctuations in the Earth's orbit known as the Milankovitch cycles. It shows that the Termination V interglacial was unusually long, lasting 28,000 years. The current interglacial is now 12,000 years old, and some scientists feared that we might be heading for an ice age soon since at least one post-Termination V interglacial lasted just 10,000 years. But the new findings suggest that even without the human hand in global warming, a new ice age would be unlikely for perhaps another 15,000 years, Wolff says. Ice blanket The core also sheds light on how ice ages have changed over the past million years. Since Termination V, ice ages have been very intense, with periods of cold weather that blanketed much of the northern hemisphere in ice for 80,000 years punctuated by short interglacials lasting typically 20,000 years. Subscribe to New Scientist for more news and features Related Stories Scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims 15 April 2004 Plankton may protect Earth from icy fate 31 October 2003 Oldest ever ice core promises climate revelations 8 September 2003 For more related stories search the print edition Archive Weblinks Eric Wolff, British Antarctic Survey European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Nature But the new core shows that, prior to Termination V, the cold and warm periods of the glacial cycle each lasted around 50,000 years but were much less intense. "Marine deposits suggested some of this, but it stands out much more clearly in the ice record," Wolff says. Meanwhile, European and US scientists are discussing plans to survey for a site in Antarctica that will extend the record still further. "We want to go back at least 1.2 million years next time," Wolff says. "But we have to find somewhere that we can do it." Journal reference: Nature (vol 429, p 623) Fred Pearce First Name Last Name Address City State Zip USA Email If you are not from the US click here For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see Print Edition Search the Archive for more stories like this, originally published in the Print Edition Subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition Contact us about this story Sign up for our free newsletter
  About newscientist.com • Subscribe • Contact Us • FAQ • Media Information • Disclaimer • Terms and Conditions • Site Map • Cookies • Privacy Policy © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

  Robotic rock-climber takes its first steps Quark experiment predicts heavier Higgs Record ice core gives fair forecast Gene may predict killer prostate cancers Rising damp delays speed record attempt Locusts swarms may spiral into plague All latest news • Subscribe • Renew • Change address Best live jobs in the hottest areas of sciences Cell Biology Software Engineering Genetics Analytical Chemistry Sales & Marketing Or search all of our jobs and opportunities		The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service Record ice core gives fair forecast 18:00 09 June 04 NewScientist.com news service As long as humans do not mess it up, the Earth's climate is set at fair for the next 15,000 years. That is according to information extracted from the oldest ice core ever drilled. The Antarctic core is the first to reach as far back as a warm period with characteristics similar to our own interglacial. So it should help make more accurate predictions about when to expect the next deep freeze. The ice core, drilled from a feature in central Antarctica called Dome C, is around 3 kilometres long and 10 centimetres wide. Changes in the relative proportions of hydrogen isotopes in the ice layers allow scientists to compile a complete record of Antarctic temperatures going back 740,000 years. The core shows the waxing and waning of eight ice ages. Most critically for making predictions about our climate, it is the first core to record a period known as Termination V, around 430,000 years ago. Warming pattern At this point, the world moved from a glacial period into a long, warm interglacial, similar to this era. The previous longest ice-core record, drilled by the Soviet Union at Vostok in Antarctica between 1980 and 1988, went back only 420,000 years. "All interglacials are slightly different, but we believe Termination V is the most similar to our own," says chief author of the new study, Eric Wolff, at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. It mirrors the pattern of solar warming between seasons and at different latitudes that are caused by fluctuations in the Earth's orbit known as the Milankovitch cycles. It shows that the Termination V interglacial was unusually long, lasting 28,000 years. The current interglacial is now 12,000 years old, and some scientists feared that we might be heading for an ice age soon since at least one post-Termination V interglacial lasted just 10,000 years. But the new findings suggest that even without the human hand in global warming, a new ice age would be unlikely for perhaps another 15,000 years, Wolff says. Ice blanket The core also sheds light on how ice ages have changed over the past million years. Since Termination V, ice ages have been very intense, with periods of cold weather that blanketed much of the northern hemisphere in ice for 80,000 years punctuated by short interglacials lasting typically 20,000 years. Subscribe to New Scientist for more news and features Related Stories Scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims 15 April 2004 Plankton may protect Earth from icy fate 31 October 2003 Oldest ever ice core promises climate revelations 8 September 2003 For more related stories search the print edition Archive Weblinks Eric Wolff, British Antarctic Survey European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Nature But the new core shows that, prior to Termination V, the cold and warm periods of the glacial cycle each lasted around 50,000 years but were much less intense. "Marine deposits suggested some of this, but it stands out much more clearly in the ice record," Wolff says. Meanwhile, European and US scientists are discussing plans to survey for a site in Antarctica that will extend the record still further. "We want to go back at least 1.2 million years next time," Wolff says. "But we have to find somewhere that we can do it." Journal reference: Nature (vol 429, p 623) Fred Pearce First Name Last Name Address City State Zip USA Email If you are not from the US click here For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see Print Edition Search the Archive for more stories like this, originally published in the Print Edition Subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition Contact us about this story Sign up for our free newsletter
  About newscientist.com • Subscribe • Contact Us • FAQ • Media Information • Disclaimer • Terms and Conditions • Site Map • Cookies • Privacy Policy © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
• 

  eyeslice

  Seems to be some doubt here as whether the earth is warming and a lot here seem to be either skeptical or taking a head in the sand approach. I guess none of us are experts on the subject so we need to the research.
  
  Actually, there are two issues here;
  
  1. Is the planet warming?
  2. Is the warming due to human activity, particularly burning of fossil fuels?
  
  For question 1, the answer is a definite yes. The debate surrounds question 2.
  
  For a balanced view of hurricanes, National Geographic had an excellent article on the subject a couple of months ago,
  
  Eyeslice
• 

  skyman

  Doofday

  you said I was full of it the above News article has it plainly stated wasy wording for you.
• 

  Eyebrow2

  
  Bonnie,

  My father remembers the year 1934 and so do a lot of people--one of the hottest years on record. There were dust storms throughout the midwest for lack of rain, and the whole country suffered from the intense heat. What caused the problem that year? How long have we been keeping records? How do we know that the weather is much different than, say, 1,000 years ago? Even if it is different, how do we know what the cycles of the earth are over thousands of years? I agree, however, we need to take care of the earth, but I don't think we need to panic.

  Hmmmm...you know....I always understood that one of the big factors in creating the whole dust bowl crisis was all the clear clutting that was done in the midwest, and shoddy farming practices AND natural drought. People just didn't think about it...how all the trees and brush being cut away over such a large area could create a dust bowl situation, etc. http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html

  Eyeslice....I have to agree with your statement. I don't dispute that "global warming" is something real, but I don't think it can be blamed 100% on humans.

  I think it is important to figure out what things we can change to help lessen the problem. If the farmers in the dust bowl area had been practicing better farm techniques, there still would have been a drought, but it would have never become the severe dust bowl conditions that happened. So, I think it is important for humans across the planet to use that as an important example. We cannot control nature, but we CAN control our own behavior so that what nature dishes out doesn't have to be as harsh....I guess we could even use the recent events in the gulf coast as an example of that as well. And back to the original question....nooo...I doubt very much Bush will change his opinion. I wish he was going to leave office sooner...sigh. Here's the thing though...we cannot change the admin right now...so we should each make sure we are doing what we can personally to not contribute to air pollution, etc....
• 

  ballistic

  Actually, there are two issues here;
  
  
  1. Is the planet warming?
  
  2. Is the warming due to human activity, particularly burning of fossil fuels?

  This is the crux of the matter. There are in fact 3 questions.

  The third question is,

  3. If man is responsible for global warming, what is the risk that we are damaging the environment in an irreversbible manner?

  This is about risk, the critical element missing from arguments against global warming.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Talesin

  Don't get me wrong, I am a Greenie, I just don't feel compelled to subscribe to all of their doctrines.

  I am very much against pollution, but I would be hard pressed to describe CO2 as a pollutant. It is the stuff of life.

  Us humans only produce a small fraction of the CO2 that is pumped into the atmosphere every year and Georgie knows that too, but even if we were releasing significant amounts, enriching the environment with CO2 speeds up plant growth. Is that such a bad thing when we have hungry people on the planet?

  The same goes for global temperatures, look at the lush vegetation in equatorial climates Is that such a bad thing?

  The habit some have of denigrating Bush as just looking after big business etc. because of his stance on Kyoto is akin to my wife telling herself that I am 'looking for faults' in JW land so that I can carry on with my 'decadent' lifestyle. It is an excuse not to address the real issues, which are: is it real? is it caused by us? is it bad?

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  DanTheMan

  Subscribing to a doctrine? Climatology is not a religion, and I think it's unfair of you to paint it as such.

  And your stating that CO2 is not a pollutant is playing semantics. Is it a pollutant in the sense that it is noxious in some form? Of course not. It is a pollutant in that it has heat trapping qualities and therefore contributes to global warming.

  And the "small amount" that human activity adds to the total amount of CO2 the earth produces has resulted in a 30% increase of the stuff in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age.
• 

  Forscher

  "And the "small amount" that human activity adds to the total amount of CO2 the earth produces has resulted in a 30% increase of the stuff in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age." Intresting point Dan the man. Which brings us to the futility of blaming Katrina on Bush's not following the Kyoto protocols. Even if Bush had followed it through, there is no way that reducing our emissions of CO2 would've prevented Katrina. It took a long time to get where we are, it would take an even longer time to have any real effect if we did change things. And that assumes that Human efforts are the problem/solution. On principle, I am one "right-wing Bible-thumping fundamentalist" who thinks we should make a real effort to reduce our use of hydrocarbon based fuels. From my point of view, we were placed in a stewardship of the earth and have been doing a mighty poor job of it. In the long term we would be better off if we kept that stewardship in mind and quit fouling our nest. But wrecking our economy is not the way to go about it. It took a while to build our economy, and it is going to take awhile to make the neede3d changes. We need to insist on viable alternative and use them when they become availble. It can be done. Forscher
• 

  talesin

  Black Sheep,

  Yes, I hear you, and there are lots of 'greenies' that agree with you. It's a bit different for me. I live a couple hundred miles from New England, with the pollution wafting over our woodlands, acid rain has killed the fish in our streams, and our forests are all clear cut.

  It's an issue that has been argued for decades. We will probably be dead before the verdict is in, which is why I don't criticize others for not believing that we are making a contribution to global warming. After all, the 'proof will be in the pudding', and I doubt that proof will be forthcoming in our lifetimes.

  I don't think Kyoto is the primary solution, and I didn't specifically criticize Bush, but all world leaders. They are all in it together, just as we are all stuck with living with their decisions.

  It's just one of many environmental issues, and many 'green' folks are divided in their opinions of this one.

  tal
• 

  DanTheMan

  One has to wonder if the educated naysayers in the fields of academic climatology and meteorology are the equivalent of our own "Scholar" - knowledgeable in their field of study but for whatever reason having a deep, bizarre hostility towards the opinions of the established experts.

  Global warming is, by-and-large, not a hotly debated among the mainstream of scientists that have spent their lives studying these issues.

  I think that some ex-jw's become cultishly anti-mainstream, ascribing WTS qualities to imagined monolithic entities (such as "Greenies"). It's one thing to say that you wonder how much it is really happening or how much humans contribute to it, but what I detect more often among the naysayers is a sneering, "Scholar"-ish contempt towards the opinions of experts who are sounding the alarm.