| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Global Warming Twice as Bad as Previously Thought | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 27 2005, 09:32 AM (511 Views) | |
| gvok | Jan 27 2005, 09:32 AM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought' By Steve Connor, Science Editor 27 January 2005 Global warming might be twice as catastrophic as previously thought, flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the interior into an unrecognisable tropical landscape, the world's biggest study of climate change shows. Researchers from some of Britain's leading universities used computer modelling to predict that under the "worst-case" scenario, London would be under water and winters banished to history as average temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present. Globally, average temperatures could reach 11C greater than today, double the rise predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body set up to investigate global warming. Such high temperatures would melt most of the polar icecaps and mountain glaciers, raising sea levels by more than 20ft. A report this week in The Independent predicted a 2C temperature rise would lead to irreversible changes in the climate. The new study, in the journal Nature, was done using the spare computing time of 95,000 people from 150 countries who downloaded from the internet the global climate model of the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. The program, run as a screensaver, simulated what would happen if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were double those of the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution, the situation predicted by the middle of this century. David Stainforth of Oxford University, the chief scientist of the latest study, said processing the results showed the Earth's climate is far more sensitive to increases in man-made greenhouse gases than previously realised. The findings indicate a doubling of carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million would increase global average temperatures by between 2C and 11C. Mr Stainforth said: "An 11C-warmed world would be a dramatically different world... There would be large areas at higher latitudes that could be up to 20C warmer than today. The UK would be at the high end of these changes. It is possible that even present levels of greenhouse gases maintained for long periods may lead to dangerous climate change... When you start to look at these temperatures, I get very worried indeed." Attempts to control global warming, based on the Kyoto treaty, concentrated on stabilising the emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels, but the scientists warned that this might not be enough. Mr Stainforth added: "We need to accept that while greenhouse gas levels can increase we need to limit them, level them off then bring them back down again." Professor Bob Spicer, of the Open University, said average global temperature rises of 11C are unprecedented in the long geological record of the Earth. "If we go back to the Cretaceous, which is 100 million years ago, the best estimates of the global mean temperature was about 6C higher than present," Professor Spicer said. "So 11C is quite substantial and if this is right we would be going into a realm that we really don't have much evidence for even in the rock [geological] record." Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said: "The danger zone is not something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in it now." Each of the hottest 15 years on record have been since 1980. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 27 2005, 09:49 AM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Back to your old baiting ways, I see... Hang on a second.
Then again, they could not.
Great, the UK is pegging their "research" on a screen saver.
No $h!t, Sherlock, but you haven't done A THING to prove that this could happen. What next? Are you going to announce that the Thames COULD rise between 9 and 88 centimeters between now and 2100? I could say that Klingons could land in my back yard with the same level of accuracy. THIS IS PATHETIC. I've written better fiction than this "article." More believable, too. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jan 27 2005, 09:59 AM Post #3 |
|
Unregistered
|
Huh? I just posted an article. I did not editorialize. Let's be friends Admiral. Come on.
|
| | Quote | ^ | |
| somerled | Jan 27 2005, 10:04 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
I would , and will actually , be reading the paper in NATURE before I decide I agree. I would like to see the evidence and analysis . Have you (ABG) read the NATURE article or are you just tossing one of your fits again ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 27 2005, 10:50 AM Post #5 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Administrative Comment Admiralbill - simply posting an article that you do not agree with does NOT constitute baiting. Gvok has the right to post articles he feels are of interest. If you don't want to discuss without flaming then just ignore the articles. End Adminstrative Comment |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 27 2005, 12:37 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
UK temperatures 20 degrees higher than today would mean the temperature rarely got below around 10 degrees, the winter average would be around 25-30 degrees, the summer average around 35-40 degrees with potential to hit 50-60 degrees in hot periods. If that is the temperature 54 degrees north of the equator what would it be like further south? Its such an terrible possibility that I am not prepared to take risks about whether this growing body of evidence is later shown conclusivley to be true or false. We must act now. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jan 27 2005, 12:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think that is a reasonable approach. At the very least the possibility of human contributions to global warming should not be rejected out of hand merely for political reasons. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dandandat | Jan 27 2005, 12:49 PM Post #8 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Bill Gvok has not done anything wrong by posting this article, it is you who is out of line as is baiting him. He has been gone for quite a while and the minute he gets back it is you who has started things up again. He has been acting on his best behavior (to prove a point most likely) but the point is true none the less. You will desist from making such comments in the future or disciplinary actions will have to be considered. This place has been quit and running smoothly since Gvok left, and now that he is back I will not let you bring it back down again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 27 2005, 01:01 PM Post #9 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Isn’t this whole artical just scare mongering? I can take a computer and run "worst-case" scenario modeling to predict what would happened if a tornado where to hit my house. But does that justify me spending a lot of money tornado proofing my house even though I live in a virtually tornado free area of the country. Showing what COULD happen if global warming where real does not make it real and passing off information like this as if the logic did fit is nothing but scare mongering. Its just as bad as those who put their heads in the sand over this issue. Like with every other major issue we face the single biggest reason we will never find solutions is that booth sides feel that if they are extreme enough in their points of view they will win the argument. But unfortunately all it does it cause a stalemate where nether sides is unwilling to work with the other, and arguments turn away form, global warming, educations, terrorism, and ect to “you’re just a tree hugging lefty in la la land” - “oh yea, well you’re just a selfish money hungry rightist” |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 27 2005, 01:03 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I prefer a more moderate approach. We should make every reasonable effort to be as efficient as possible in our use of energy and other natural resources. I will not support causing personnal hardships, economic hardships, &c. on the speculations of those whose political motivations are suspect. Yes, the EU and China want the USA to roll over for them. The whole purpose that the EU seems to have is to challenge the power of the USA and viewed in this light I prefer moderation and not jumping to wild conclusions. We still can't adequate predict the weather next week. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jan 27 2005, 01:05 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think there's some truth to your POV Dan. I suppose I personally fall on the more cautious side of the fence when it comes to environmental issues, especially ones with potentially very negative consequences. I suppose we'll know soon enough if some of these predictions are true or not. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Minuet | Jan 27 2005, 01:47 PM Post #12 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
NIce to see we are in agreement Dante
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 27 2005, 02:11 PM Post #13 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Make that three out of three. If you think that he is baiting you, the response is easy. Don't respond. If not one is interested, the topic drops off the page. If people are and can discuss things rationally, it stays. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jan 28 2005, 02:45 AM Post #14 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Has anyone managed to get their hand on the full scientific paper yet ? My local university library hasn't got the relevant issue of Nature yet. Oh - for those of you who aren't familiar with massive-parallelism (in computing) and responding to
This is a very good example of the application of massive parallelism , ie lots of CPUs all working at once , via TCP , on the tiny parts of a huge calculation problem , a poor man's SUPERCOMPUTER. This approach has also been used in other studies requiring huge numbers of computations to solve a problem , to model something , to scan huge data bases for something that is hard to find. One that comes to mind immediately is SETI . |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Jan 28 2005, 07:33 AM Post #15 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




9:45 AM Jul 11