NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming

[Newsjock]

Source: ABC News

Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

... The forecast effects include "increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones," according to the NASA announcement.

By heralding the new research paper, NASA is endorsing science that places considerably more urgency on the need to reduce emissions to avoid "disastrous effects" of global warming than was evident in the recent reports from the world's scientists coordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473&page=1

[Drum]

1. Vote it up!

:kick:

[OKIsItJustMe]

140. NASA Links

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070530/

[lvx35]

2. Recommended. Its very important.

Global warming so huge that it seems kind of like a dream, so I forget about it and focus on my life, and then keep waking up to it again. Its critical that we all act, because the government is not going to provide a solution here.

[silverweb]

3. But... but... but...

...business "leaders" say reducing emissions will hurt the economy. What about that, huh? :sarcasm:

It's way past time to get serious about this, and beat the nay-sayers and business-as-usual crowd over the head!

[intheflow]

4. NASA could start by refusing to burn huge amounts of rocket fuel to

blast through the atmosphere putting people into space, where they can't survive without consuming more fossil fuels? I mean, I love the Star Trek dream as much as the next person, but can we restrain from putting humans in space until NASA develops a clean, sustainable warp technology?

Otherwise, kudos to NASA for saying something. :kick:

[The Doctor.]

6. This is great;

"I mean, I love the Star Trek dream as much as the next person, but can we restrain from putting humans in space until NASA develops a clean, sustainable warp technology?"

Priceless. The energy the shuttle uses in one launch can't compete with a day on America's highways. I'm really looking forward to that clean anihilation reaction energy for warp engines.

[intheflow]

24. Can't tell if you're being snarky.

But no matter. I certainly won't argue with you that a day on American highways (and skyways) probably trumps a single NASA launch.

[silverojo]

40. Whatever....

Shuttle launches are nevertheless a huge waste of fuel, no matter how it compares to a day's worth of cars on the road.

[many a good man]

43. One shuttle launch = one million cars' emissions for a year

To be more exact, the analogy I've heard is that it is equivalent to the emissions emitted by all the cars in a city of one million in a year. One launch.

[tabasco]

56. Got a source for that claim?

If you are interested in being "exact," maybe you could post some sources.

Space launches provide a clearly tangible benefit for science and society. I'm curious about this emissions claim.

[whopis01]

76. That is ridiculous

It is a hard comparison to make due to the different fuel sources used in a shuttle launch. However, we can make a decent attempt at it.

There are two basic fuel types being burned during launch, one is the SRBs, and another in the main engines.
The SRBs' fuel stack is made of ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, iron oxide, a polymer binder, and a epoxy curing agent. The shuttle burns about 2.2 million pounds of this mixture.

The other fuel source is hydrogen and oxygen that is burned in the main engines. The byproduct of this process is water. Thus, we can fairly safely ignore the main engines and concentrate on just the SRBs.

Calculating the pollution of the SRBs gets tricky because its main exhaust component is not CO2. Instead it produces other pollutants (which in some cases may be worse than CO2).

If we just measure by weight of pollutants produced, we can assume roughly 2,200,000 lbs of pollutants will come out of the SRBs for each launch. Since the oxidizer is contained within the solid fuel, no outside oxygen is consumed in the process. Since internal combustion engines in autos are air-breathing, they actually produce more exhaust (by weight) than the amount of gasoline put into them. (Basically, the CO2 produced gets the C from the gas and O2 from the air).

A car produces approximately 20lbs of CO2 for each gallon of gas. If we assume that the average car gets 25mpg and the average driver does about 12,000 miles in a year (I believe both of these are rather conservative estimates), we would get each car produces about 9,600 lbs of CO2 a year. That means it would take roughly 230 cars to produce 2,200,000 lbs of CO2 over the course of year.

A city with one million cars (as per your subject line) would produce 9,600,000,000 lbs of CO2 in year. Or if we assumed a city with one million residents (as per the body of your statement), we would have to make an assumption of what percentage of the population drove cars. If we are conservative and assumed 1 car per 50 people, we would still have 20,000 cars producing 192,000,000lbs of CO2. (The US average is one car per 5 people, but a single person could have multiple cars that they obviously could not drive all at the same time).

If we try to take into account the environmental impact of the srb exhaust, the most significant component is HCl (hydrochloric acid). Each launch produces about 500,000 lbs of it. This can (and does) cause acid rain amongst other problems. However, the amount produced is small compared to how much is produced through other industries. Coal powered plants produce vastly more amounts of HCl than the shuttle program could ever make.

Now, this isn't to say that the shuttle isn't a pollution source. However, it is not a large source of pollution and eliminating it would not significantly reduce the pollution problem. And it certainly would have no measurable effect on greenhouse gasses and global warming.

The statement that the each shuttle launch is equivalent to X number of cars driven for a year is often thrown out. I have seen it as high as 'all the cars in the US', believe it or not. However, it is almost always FUD.

[file83]

104. Excellent analysis - this demonstrates the difference between someone who can think

like you, and the people that just go by urban myths (the person you were responding to).

I knew that there were only several million pounds of fuel in the shuttle, so at worst there could only be several million pounds of exhaust. Realizing the basic fact that each car puts out several thousand pounds of exhaust each year, I knew that what the original poster claimed was patently false.

I started doing the research, came back to see if anyone had already posted on it, and saw your well researched and thought out post.

Good work my friend. :thumbsup:

[whopis01]

119. That you! I appreciate that. n/t

[truedelphi]

114. However I have heard that it does punch holes in the ozone

Does it do that?

In significant or insignificant amounts?

[whopis01]

118. From what I understand it does not (at least not significantly)

There are a couple papers out there that reference studies they did (including flying high altitude aircraft through the path that the shuttle took immediately after the launch in order to collect samples and study the effects on the ozone. From what I understand it was not a significant effect.

Granted any damage to the ozone is not good, and we should not overlook any potential cause for harm. However, the true effect of the damage is best measured by the (number of a particular source) X (damage from that source). With that in mind, eliminating rocket launches doesn't really give that big of a payoff (as opposed to improving the efficiency of autos, etc...)

[pschoeb]

132. If you ignore the enormous amounts of energy used to make both

the SRB's and the SSME's(main engines) fuel, then of course it sounds pretty good, but of course that energy comes from somewhere that makes CO2, either from gasoline or from burning natural gas or coal for most of the electrical power involved. Also making Hydrogen(it's usually made from natural gas) releases CO2, by currently used methods. liquefaction takes energy, and hydrogen looses large amounts of it's energy potential when it is liquefied (about 30%). There are three SSME and each will release 6.4 GJ/s(gigawatt) of chemical energy, they burn for about 480 seconds meaning they release 3072 GJ of energy. My guess is that a similar amount of CO2 from the creation of the SSME feul is produced by a gas powered electrical plants production of the same amount of energy. If we consider that an average American household(not people but household) consumes 11,000 kWh of electrical energy a year this means we consume 80 GJ of electrical energy a year, so the SSME's alone probably create the equivalent CO2 to the yearly use of electricity of about 80 average Americans households(or 287 people), this would be about 1,280,000 lbs of CO2 based on CO2 production at gas powered electrical plants. Or it creates the same amount of CO2 as 750,000 people using an average amount electricity for the same amount of time(8 minutes). This would mean that the SSME by themselves would probably create as much CO2 as 200,000 cars operating for the same 8 minutes the SSME's are in use.

Now I'm guessing the energy used to create the SRB's fuel ends up being similar or higher to the SSMEs, with as much CO2, besides what they are putting out themselves as they burn. Then there is the huge amounts of electricity used to monitor the launch, and the super large vehicles that hauls the shuttle out for launch and the two ships that belong to NASA to recover the SRB's and other parts, and the flight hours, and simulation hours that the astronauts have to engage in before the flight. Or the energy consumed in all the tests needed to be done before a flight. I wouldn't doubt that this has a similar CO2 creation to 1 million cars operating for the same amount of time as the launch to orbit, 8 minutes. Now when compared to one million cars for a year, that doesn't seem bad, but I think if you told someone that the shuttle for CO2 purposes, was made essentially of a million car engines to boost it into space, it doesn't sound so great.

Of course this doesn't count the huge amounts of energy required to build and maintain a space shuttle.

Is it worth it, possibly, but we need to start doing exacting total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission and other environmental analysis on everything we do, so that we can make good judgments on this and other things. Also we need to evaluate every shuttle mission to maximize it's effectiveness. The main point of the shuttle and later planned vehicles is building the ISS, and later maintaining it. There are many that criticize that the experiments performed by the shuttle and the ISS are trivial, others that since many important segments of the ISS have been canceled, the research that could have been done when initially planning it can no longer be done. This would be a separate category for me, from other space programs.

Right now I think it probably is worth it, but if we start seriously taking these things into account and doing all the calculations(for every process not just this), including other ways of getting similar data and knowledge, my opinion might seriously change.

[jimlup]

101. The Shuttle Was a Mistake But...

It is hard to make a one for one evaluation of the impact of a shuttle launch or any other launch for that matter on GW. The problem is that significant knowledge about our planet is gained by the space program. In addition the psycologoical impact of the pictures like the Apollo 8 earthrise are essentially incalculatable.

Nevertheless, I agree that the Shuttle program is a failure. Partly because it did not result in a long term effcient way of getting into space. It is like having mom drive a Mack Truck to her kid's soccer game. If we decoupled payloads from people we would potentially have the critical parts of a reusable system.

It is also very dissappointing to see the US essentially pull out of the space station program. There are problems with this program but the concept remains useful. The program to follow the shuttle is significant worse. It is a one-shot pie in the sky program and will inevitably result in cost overruns and funding cancellations.

[dave29]

8. a small point

without "space science" (ie weather satellites, and missions to study the Earth's atmosphere) very little of the "Earth Science" we are using to underline the urgency of Global warming would be possible. This includes experiments conducted by humans in space, as well as understanding the atmospheres, geology and makeup of other planets with the remarkable missions we have been privileged to witness in our lifetimes.

Of course burning rocket fuel is no help, but I would presume the amount all commerical aviation burns in a day would trump what NASA does in a year.

I'm not a rocket scientist :) but that would be my guess, anyway.

[intheflow]

23. True. A better critique of military industrial complex contributing to global warming

might be the amount of munitions exploded each day in countless wars around the world? :)

Certainly not negating the effect of commercial aviation, just sayin'... wish they'd come up with some affordable, clean-burning fuel options for all the traveling we do.

[Occulus]

9. Well, if you want something real along those lines

Here you are.

[intheflow]

26. My head hurts.

What did that say? I thought I understood this part:

This report is written with the aim of describing the basic architecture of Heim´s theory in mainly non-technical terms... the terminology of field theory is often replaced by less specific but more readily comprehensible expressions.

Then here's the abstact:

Heim´s Theory is defined in a 6-dimensional world, in 2 dimensions of which events take place that organize processes in the 3 dimensions of our experience. A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology.

Here's what I understood:

...

So glad that scientific terminology was replaced by "more readily comprehensible expressions"! :rofl:

God, I feel like a Far Side cartoon:

:rofl:

[LanternWaste]

113. That's how I felt after reading...

That's how I felt after reading Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". All my pals said, 'you'll love it-- he keeps it simple! You'll be smarter in days!

Simple? Ha! And Ha! again. By Chapter Two I realized why I never excelled in science courses and by Chapter Three I was in simple despair over my limited intellect.

[deweyp]

15. STS Rocket Fuel

The rocket fuel that the Shuttle uses in its main engine are Hydrogen and Oxygen. The beautiful trail that the shuttle leaves behind as it arcs up into the sky is 97% Water Vapor. The solid fuel boosters burn a rocket propellant that is a mixture of powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate. While in orbit, the shuttles uses thrusters that burn hydrazine and oxygen.

Outside of the hydrogen and oxygen, those chemicals are nasty stuff, but they are not fossil fuel and don't contribute to global warming.

[intheflow]

27. I'll have to take your word for that.

[deweyp]

31. No you don't

Ask Google.

How the sts works isn't a secret.

[NastyDiaper]

69. welcome

:toast:

[deweyp]

85. Thanks

nt

[VTMechEngr]

120. Dude, Just balance the chemical equation

Where is the CO2?


And the Shuttle is


Where is the CO2?


"take your word for that" must be the code for "I Can't admit I just ranted against the shuttle for no reason"

[EnviroBat]

145. I'm almost bawling my eyes out right now... I used to know how to do that.

Back when I was in college, I had to take quite a few chemistry classes for pre-vet med. I can't remember a damn thing about them now... You've hurt me deeply.

[EnviroBat]

42. Who are you that are so wise in the ways of science?

Thanks for that... Good info.
Oh, and welcome to DU.
:hi:

[deweyp]

133. Thank You.

I'm just a guy with some curiosity. Nice to be here.

[Cobalt-60]

28. sts has two main propellants

H2+O2 in the main engines. this produces a relatively clean exhaust.
Solid fuel in the strap ons. This is very nasty locally, but of little significance in the overall global pollution situation.
There are some other relatively vile liquid propellants in the orbiter rcs, though most of that gets released in vacuum.

[intheflow]

30. What does that mean,

"most of that gets released in vacuum"? It gets released in space?

[Cobalt-60]

34. yes, RCS = attitude jets used for space maneuvers.

aka Reaction Control System
there are also some larger OMS - Orbital Maneuvering System - engines used for large orbital changes and re entry that burn the same stuff, also in space.

[paparush]

71. Right..which is why, after the shuttle lands, the hazmat teams are on it

to check for leaks, residue, etc...

[NastyDiaper]

68. NASA is a leader in climate study.

I'd say 'the' leader except for their censure by *ya.

I don't get the Drudge style attack on researchers. We should compare the carbon tonnage from a launch to that from the oil and coal produced for Florida air conditioners, not individuals.

I admit to not being a fan of the shuttle. Old tech, too much focus on human transport. The space truck delivered, but didn't even get close to the cost-per-launch and reliability promised in the 70s.

Robotics and Climate Research, please.

We're fucked. People want to talk psuedo si-fi, let's talk orbital sunscreens. imo

[phusion]

5. Translation: We're fucked. n/t

[ToeBot]

11. Yup! n/t

[Nay]

116. Exactly. They just don't know how to tell us peons yet that pretty

soon we'll be harking back to feudal times IF WE ARE LUCKY. And with dipshit at the helm for the last 7 years and pubs in general in power for a lot longer than that, the run of the mill folks will simply be crushed or enslaved.

The I GOT MINE Club will be picking and choosing among us which shall live (i.e., be allowed to slave/whore/work for them) and which shall be swept away as useless eaters.

[DKRC]

7. K&R! nt

[kestrel91316]

10. Hang onto your hats, folks! We are in for a wild ride.

I REALLY REALLY want to rent an apartment within walking distance of my office. I SOOOOO don't want to need gas for daily necessities.

[krkaufman]

13. I'm waiting for the websites to emerge that allow users to locate ...

... future coastlines, given rising sea levels, and get in early on the beachfront properties of the 22nd Century.

[Journeyman]

16. Saw one of those a few months back. . .

didn't bookmark it, unfortunately, and really wish I had, since it showed the sea at my doorstep (or hereabouts). So I, too, am interested in seeing more websites with that info. Not that I'm going to be pleased with it, but forewarned is forearmed (as they say. . . whoever they are).

[krkaufman]

21. There's the flood plain ...

... and then there's the iceshelf plain.

[TheMadMonk]

35. Here you go.

http://flood.firetree.net/

[Barrett808]

66. I call this the "Lex Luther development plan". n/t

[krkaufman]

78. Ha! Exactly....

[nam78_two]

12. K&R/nt

[xxqqqzme]

14. uh-oh - time for * to apoint an incompetent crony

to cover this up.

[deweyp]

17. Where is the report available?

Anyone know the name of the report and where we can get a copy?

[bananas]

53. The report pdf is here

The report pdf is here http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf
More info at this blog entry http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/28/one-more-hansen-et-al-must-read-what-is-dangerous-human-interference-with-climate/

[deweyp]

87. Thank You!

nt

[calteacherguy]

18. WE NEED NUCLEAR ENERGY AND RENEWABLES. RENEWABLES ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH!

Sorry for the shouting, but we need to get serious! Time is running out! Stop burying our heads in the sand on the issue of nuclear energy! The future of the planet is at stake!

[july302001]

20. agreed

nt

[tabasco]

55. I have to agree. Nuclear power is the only feasible alternative at this point.

Conservation is the true solution but I have given up hope on that.

[whopis01]

77. agreed n/t

[ryanmuegge]

144. It's a gamble we have to take.

Something bad MAY happen with nuclear energy. Something bad is certainly going to happen without it. It's time to start living in the real world.

[Dr.Phool]

19. Read the comments section

Nothing but freeper scientists, aka dumbfucks.

[Conscious Confucius]

22. This is why we need President Al Gore

We need a leader that would push for laws to seriously reform all of the harm done in the private sector. We also need a moral leader to inspire the people of America -and the world- to change.

[JCMach1]

25. Even if they are 25% right we are screwed!

[Miss Chybil]

29. K/R nt

[Dukkha]

32. is this the science * was waiting to get in?

to just wait until everyone's screaming the sky is falling before you finally acknowledge that global warming does exist and is the single greatest crisis in modern history?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. As a culture, we are in massive denial

No country is doing enough, and the U.S. is doing the least of all.

The Bushies and their corporate cronies and their counterparts throughout the world are acting like the people of St. Pierre on the French Caribbean island of Martinique in 1902.

Read their story here:

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Pelee.html

[deweyp]

45. Not doing enough?

Who do you think funds climate research? The US federal government spends about $5 billion a year now on climate research. Who did you think paid for NASA global warming studies? The Sierra Club?

Climate research is a Huge business. It's where all the research dollars are going now. If you've just graduated and decide that you'd like to study "The nocturnal behavior of the New York Grey Squirrel", you've got your best chance of getting funding if you submit a request studying "The Effects of Global Warming on the Nocturnal Activities of the New York Grey Squirrel".

Who did you think paid for the IPCC Global Warming Report? The IPCC is part of the UN, which is funded mainly by the United States.

The current administration may not like the results, but they're continuing to fund the research.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. They're not doing enough like 1) raising fuel economy standards (in fact,

they have consistently resisted it), 2) funding public transit and intercity rail (they're against public money for either), 3) funding research into alternatives to carbon-generating fuels, and 4) stopping the expansion of highways and suburban sprawl.

How many more studies do those numbskulls need to get going on some action plans?

[deweyp]

93. Out here

in suburbia, a much needed and much studied rail line into the city are stalled not by lack of money, but becuase the tracks that would be used run behind houses that weren't there when the rail line was last used 25 or more years ago.

I suppose it's good they're taking it easy before spending billions of dollars. I understand that the EU is way ahead of us, and that their economy is suffering because of it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Heaven forbid that the almighty suburbanite should be inconvenienced

to save the planet. :eyes:

[hunter]

105. Define "suffering."

Like they have a healthcare system that's not controlled by thieves? That the dollar is so damned cheap now a middle class European person can fly to New York City for fun and shopping during a few days of their annual six-week vacation?

Damn, I wish I could suffer like that. Instead I've got to fight off the collection agencies that bought our family's medical bills. But it's sort of fun when you reach that point where you just don't give a shit anymore... Once they understand they are standing in line behind the IRS and you couldn't care less about your credit rating, then they suddenly become polite again.

:party:

[deweyp]

111. It seems

like the EU's problems are creeping up like climate change. There's fighting over increased auto emission standards, and they will start to lose business to countries that are not signed on to Kyoto, like the US, India, China...

Plus they're spending billions on meeting Kyoto restrictions and may not meet them anyway.

And DON"T get me started on health care. :(

[hunter]

121. We'll see.

Arguing here changes nothing about the reality of climate change.

No matter our fancy brains, I'm absolutely certain our human population is subject to natural limitations, and that our exponential growth will be halted and probably go negative as those limits are reached. It's probably going to happen in this generation, not by resource depletion as so many have predicted, but by the environmental consequences of fossil fuel use.

Even slight changes in sea level will be tremendously destructive, shifting barrier islands, and increasing coastal erosion. The expense of international trade and transport will increase as the costs of maintaining ports in an operable condition increases. Agriculture will have to adapt too. Places that are irrigated now may be abandoned, and places that now depend upon rainfall will have to be irrigated.

Doesn't matter what we say, these things will happen, or they won't. We will adapt, or we won't.

We do have choices, including doing nothing.

I happen to believe strongly that the business as usual "do nothing" option will result in more human suffering than a proactive restructuring of the way our society does things.

Even if by some miracle climate change is not such a big deal, and for some mysterious reason the weather doesn't get worse and the seas don't rise, actions such that we reduce our dependence upon automobiles or abandon our use of coal will result in a better society for all of us.

The market isn't always right, as evidenced by any economic "bubble." It's entirely possible that our entire fossil fuel economy is simply the great mother of all economic bubbles.

[deweyp]

138. I'm not arguing

When I argue IT LOOKS LIKE THIS :)

I don't think we are causing or can do anything about whatever is happening to the climate.

I do think that any money spent on reducing CO2 emissions is being wasted. That money should be spent getting sanitation and education to third world nations so the people there can prepare themselves for whatever happens.

But that will never happen.

[Wednesdays]

62. Okay, okay, we're doing enough then...

Back to our business as usual. Move on. :eyes:

[deweyp]

95. Don't forget

that the post I replied to said that the US is doing nothing in regard to global warming. I pointed out that the US has funded virtually all climate change research, without which, you would have never heard about it, now, would you?

There's nothing stopping individuals from doing all they can. Let's go.

[lakeguy]

73. how much do we spend on war every year? nt

[deweyp]

94. And

from this non-sequitar I'm supposed to infer....?

[gobblechops]

123. sorry

what he means when he says not doing enough is this administration is doing nothing about co2 emissions when there is a lot that can be done,and that stuff about losing business to other countries on high fuel standards guess what they cant sell those cars here because of our high standards we are the worlds largest consumer after all,and if american car companies want to sell there products in countries that don't have the high fuel standards they can just continue to make different cars for different countries like they already do.


and as far as climate change being a huge business non profit research is not a get rich quick scheme no matter how much money you throw at it.

[19jet54]

36. Question about warming...

... does the warming overheat the magma, causing increased volcanic activity too?

[Solon]

39. Negative...

Only atmospheric temperature, mostly at sea level, and working its way up, is affected by greenhouse gasses. Also, before you ask, human industry produces over 100 times more CO2 per year than all volcanoes in the world in that same year. Volcanoes also spew out sulfur dioxide, which, when it reacts with water vapor, creates sulfuric acid and leads to global cooling. As a result, volcanic activity actually is one of the counteractions to global warming. This is why, when we get massive volcanic explosions, we get things like "The Year without Summer".

[19jet54]

97. Huh?

Thanks! I guess 1 or 2 degrees on the surface is very small compared to molten core temps anyway.

[Uncle Joe]

109. A follow up question, can Global Warming affect the Magnetic Field? n/t

[Solon]

142. Nope, the Magnetic field is generated when the liquid outer core...

flows around the solid inner core of the Earth. Occasionally, the liquid outer core will change direction, flipping the magnetic poles, we don't know WHY this happens, but it does. As far as Global Warming affecting the core? No, it can't, we have about 3000 km of Rock, liquid and solid, and at least two layers, Iron, one liquid, on solid, between the surface, and warming atmosphere, of the Earth, and the core itself.

The only thing that affects the magnetic field of the Earth is the gradual cooling of the planet itself. All the other terrestrial planets in our solar system don't have measurable magnetic fields, and hence they lose atmosphere to the solar winds, and surfaces are exposed a lot of radiation. So why is the Earth unique in this regard? Well, its probably a combination of 3 things. First, its the biggest terrestrial planet, larger objects lose heat at a much slower rate than smaller objects, this is true of planets just like its true for food.

The other two are radioactive decay and the Moon. Radioactive decay, mostly of Uranium, in the Earth's core, its mostly made of Iron and Nickel, but there is some Uranium and when it decays, it emits heat in the process. The Moon also contributes a little, though, at this point in time, far less than in the past, its gravitational field causes tidal forces on the Earth, both ocean AND crust, causing friction, and hence, heat.

Iron is the key, of course, the core of a planet, in order to have a magnetic field, must exceed the melting point of Iron. This is why, when I talk about the Earth cooling, I'm not referring to atmosphere at all, but the core. It loses heat, and radiates it out from the core to the surface. We feel the affects of this through active geology, volcanoes and Earthquakes.

The future of Earth's magnetic field is one of gradual weakening, eventually, probably a few billion years from now, the outer core will stop spinning, and the magnetic field will cease to function. This won't be from humans doing, but let's hope our proverbial descendants, if our species still exists then, will have found another way to survive.

[Uncle Joe]

147. Thank you for your concise answer.

I was thinking of the atmosphere in the same light as water, that it contracts and expands, as it heats or cools and thought maybe this dynamic could effect the Earth's spinning motion, in some minor way that could trigger the flipping, that you are referring to.

I knew about the inner core creating our magnetic field, but nonetheless thought the atmosphere's change in size could create a very subtle yet ultimately devastating effect.

Again, thank you for your reply.

[Solon]

148. No problem, also, while the atmosphere does expand when heated...

its not nearly as great as it is for liquids. Liquids, like water, bring more noticeable affects because of the greater density of a liquid compared to a gas. In addition to this, the angular velocity of the Earth wouldn't be affected that much by the atmosphere, and in fact, it is again the Moon's tidal action in combination's with the Sun's that slows Earth's spinning. To give an idea of how much the Earth's spinning has slowed down, back about 4.5 billion years ago, when the Moon was formed, after Theia slammed into the Earth and parts of both coalesced into the Moon, the Earth had a day that lasted about 5 hours. Ever since then, the Moon has been moving away from the Earth at a relatively steady rate, about a little less than an inch a year, and the Earth has had a gradually lengthening day.

In case you are wondering, someday in the future, the Moon will leave Earth's gravitational well entirely and be flung off to some other part of the Solar System, maybe to become a new dwarf planet, maybe to come back and slam into the Earth, or some other planet, or even the Sun, who knows.

[Uncle Joe]

149. As Mr. Spock would say "fascinating"

the thought of a one and half hour work day is enticing though.;-)

[Dark]

37. K&R ... albeit a sad one. nt

[gobblechops]

38. when it happens

they will still claim its a cycle or its gods work they will never believe its man made cause thats what the oil company's tell them the average joe in this country will not stop watching fox news or listening to rightwing talk or believing what there dido head brother tells them they just are not smart enough to think for themselves on this issue.

Here in Kentucky i haven't met one person that believes global warming is real,not saying they are not here i am just haven't met any face to face when i discuss the issue and i often do.

if this problem gets solved its gonna be with out popular support someones gonna have to be a hero that takes lots of crap and no credit from the general american public.

[lfairban]

41. You want my suggestion?

Get an e-bike, save the planet.

[DemoTex]

44. I hope my new Prius will be considered a gas-guzzler in 5 years.

The 2009 Prius-II, to be released in 2008, will have a larger battery and be capable of 100+ mpg. John Kerry has a Prius with an after-market big-battery, and he gets near 100 mpg.

Meanwhile, the last time I fueled my Prius was April 24! I have driven 250 city-miles since 4/24, and the fuel gauge sits at 1/2 tank. I will get through the month of May and on into June without buying a drop of petrol.

Even some R/Wers get it. My R/W neighbor drove my Prius last week. He loved it so much that he put his big hog Buick on the market ("W" sticker and all). As soon as he sells the Buick he will buy a Prius.

I realize that the remedy will go far beyond what we drive or don't drive. Consumption patterns must change, life-styles must change, and innovative alternative energy sources must be found.

[deweyp]

49. My Civic

I've been hypermiling my standard 2005 Honda Civic and am now getting 47 miles to the gallon. Not a hybrid. Driving technique. Anyone can do it. Hypermilers are getting 100+ miles per gallon from current hybrids. If you're not getting 70-80 mpg gallon from your hybrid, you should improve your technique.

I use CFL bulbs in my house.

I don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[hatrack]

59. How special for you!

nt

[deweyp]

83. You

don't know just *how* special, bubba.

[19jet54]

112. If I recall correctly

... Jimmy Carter enacted most of what we are re-doing now - alternative energy, fuel economy standards, tax breaks for research, 55 mph highway speeds and so on - Back then the cars were smaller, engines were less than 2L or 2,000cc and the power to weight ratio was more reasonable than the tanks/SUVs we now see in America? How soon we forget the 70s moving right on into the 80s Reganomics era...

[siligut]

46. We are in for change no matter what we do or want.

Did anyone else see where Pelosi was on Yahoo asking what the American people think we should do about the environment? My interpretation was that she wanted to know how much we were willing to sacrifice. Please extrapolate for yourselves, because just thinking about this twisted conundrum pisses me off.

[Joe Bacon]

47. my idiot aunt says It doesn't matter, Jesus is coming next week!

She's been uttering the same bullshit for years. Another one of her favorite lines is that when Jesus comes back he wlll make all the oil we need.

I just shake my head at the millions of ignorant idiots like her who empower the Nazi Party

[deweyp]

50. I'm one of the idiots

That have looked at the IPCC AR4, the large scale Multiproxy Temperature Reconstructions and statistical studies and decided that the current temperatures, if they're even warming, are not unprecedented in the last 1000 years. Nor do I think that by adding 0.11% to the total Greenhouse Gases (Water Vapor is the main Greenhouse Gas, not CO2) that man is creating the problem.

Or are you referring to the idiots that just believe what the scientists and Al Gore say? Kind of like the people that wave the bible in people's faces while never having read it.

[UpInArms]

57. you must have some really weird ideas

"the people that wave the bible in people's faces while never having read it"

Where did Cain get his wife after he killed his brother if the only people left were his mother, father and himself?

[deweyp]

88. Cain's wife

although not explicitly spelled out in the bible, was probably a sister or a niece.

You know, kill your brother and then marry your sister. makes sense to me.

[ieoeja]

117. Or he just married one of the other women that God created.

For the record, I am a 100% devout atheist. However, the whole "who did Cain marry" argument falls apart with the following challenge...

Quote me the passage in the bible that says Yahweh did not create other human beings after Adam & Eve.

I believe you will find that right alongside the passages concerning evolution, gravity, electricity, nuclear power, and so on.

[jebediah]

63. regarding the Temp. Reconstructions:

"According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals (see graph), the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the record."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

This is similar to what I've read elsewhere-- we are in unprecedented territory within a millennium.

At some point we all have to defer to the specialists and experts. I've read quite a bit but that still doesn't give me the training to interpret or truly understand the data. I wouldn't say it was idiocy to accept the general conclusions of all the peer reviewed science publications.

As a point of argument, not all greenhouse gases are the same. A smaller percent of methane, for example, is far more impactful than the same percentage of CO2.

[deweyp]

82. Temperature reconstructions

It has been acknowledged by dendrochronologists that there is a divergence problem starting in the 1990s in which the reconstructions no longer resemble instrument data. The reconstructions turn downward, showing a period of decreasing temperature, while the instrument data shows the familiar upward spike in temperatures. The problem is discussed in

"A Matter Of Divergence: Tracking Recent Warming At Hemispheric Scales Using Tree-Ring Data"

If the reconstructions can't mimic the current instrument data, is the instrument data incorrect, or are the reconstructions?

Bear in mind that satellite temperature data collected since the 1990s diverge from the instrument data as well.

If the reconstructions are incorrect, then the Medieval Warm Period may have been as warm as it is now. Or warmer.

As far as the peer reviewed journals are concerned, there's a suspicion that a fair amount of gatekeeping is going on insofar as which papers get reviewed and published.

I agree that not all GHG are equal, but, c'mon, water vapor accounts for 99% of all greenhouse gases. There's even a paragraph in the IPCC report that says that they don't consider the effect of water vapor because we can't do anything about it.

It isn't idiocy to believe science, but you should make an effort to check into things (which you've obviously done) before presenting them to others as facts. Don't forget that the consensus of 2500 scientists that told us that we're the cause of global warming, also recently said that nuclear energy is a major solution.

[jebediah]

86. good points. Thanks. nt

[harun]

65. It is not about temperature

This is why people shouldn't use the term "Global Warming", the problems of rising greenhouse gas levels can actually cause cooling in some areas and a lot of other things we just don't know. The problem is the rising CO2 levels. By looking at the available data it is irresponsible to consider anyone KNOWS that the levels we are exceeding are not going to cause any problems.

[fidgeting wildly]

67. So if I believe what scientists say, I'm an idiot?

Does that go for all scientists, or just those who don't agree with you? :crazy:

[deweyp]

90. That's not what I meant

I was taking a shot at the people who just parrot what they've heard without any investigation. I respect the work of people I don't necessarily agree with. But I've looked at that work before disagreeing with it.

[LSK]

79. even IF we are wrong (BIG IF), what harm comes from trying???

There is also peak oil coming up and there are enormous economic benefits from developing new alternatives technologies.

Fighting Global Warming is a win win. I dont see what the downside is unless Im an EXXON stockholder and for them too bad, they have already made their fortune.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Here's a direct quote from the Summary for Policymakers

"Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4
to 6 metres of sea level rise." You manage to draw the opposite conclusion from AR4.

"Nor do I think ... that man is creating the problem". More from the SPM: "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 <+0.6 to +2.4> W m-2 ... Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 <+0.06 to +0.30> W m-2"

You say "if they're even warming". Again, a quote: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level". There's no 'if' about it.

The water vapour content of the atmosphere depends overwhelmingly on temperature, since if goes through a cycle in a matter of days, as opposed to carbon dioxide, which is on the scale of centuries. This means it is not a driver of long-term change, but a potential feedback mechanism. Anyone who had actually read the IPCC reports would know this.

I thus have to agree with you on one thing: you are an idiot.

[deweyp]

98. There's a difference

between reading things and necessarily believing them in the light of conflicting information.

Nice ad-hominem attack, though, you get 2 points for that. :)

[gobblechops]

122. here you go freeper

most of the stuff infoe told ya is debunked here,check out the blue links at the bottom.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn11462

[deweyp]

136. No need for name calling.

I vote straight line democratic and always have.

My progressive friends can't understand why I'm not joining the "biggest movement ever". I really don't see it as a political issue and can't understand why it is. My interest in climate change is strictly scientific, and I gotta tell ya, the more I read,the more it seems like "Weird Science". Most scientific papers provide datasets and calculations so that the work can be replicated by others. Climate science papers generally do not. The temperature recontructions diverge from the instrument records from the 1990s forward. The satellite data diverges from the instrument data. Climate scientists that are part of the consensus acknowledge this. There's debate and research ongoing. The Global Circulation Models are known to be particularly good at modeling the effects of clouds.

I just find it intensly interesting to watch the ongoing research and debate.

I save resources when I can or if it's fun or if it saves me money. I like clean air and water. I like to walk in the woods.We plant trees but I don't hug them ;)

I'm not a bad guy :).

PS I think New Scientist magazine has an agenda. I liked the "How to talk to a climate skeptic" article in the current (I Think) isue. It reminded me of "The Atheist Debater's Handbook". (How to talk to a religionist?) I thought most of it was wrong, but I enjoyed it anyway.

[Tesha]

48. "God will provide"

No doubt the deniers will again claim "God will provide".

Ahh well, maybe the Grey Parrots will do a better job with
the planet than we've done.

Tesha

[hatrack]

51. "Closer than thought" "Faster than thought:" "More rapidly than thought"

Get used to these kinds of phrases. You're going to be seeing them a LOT.

[endarkenment]

52. Scientific American ran an issue on this last year.

I think that 2015 was basically the drop dead date for keeping us off the worst case path, and we had to start earlier than that with major policy initiatives to avert the threshold levels that trigger catastrophic change. It was pretty grim, especially in light of the rather obvious fact that we right here in the USA do not have the political will nor the leadership to take any significant measures to avert the disaster. We are on the roller coaster and there is no way off. At best we might have an administration in the White House by 2009 that is willing to even consider action, but we will continue to have a Congress and a populace that is either too corrupt or too apathetic to act.

[ramapo]

72. It is a sorry truth

We have regressed, not progressed. It is inconceivable that the politicians will lead and just as absurd to think the people will lead. Apathy and ignorance are the foundations of our society. As long as the TV works and there is gas to put in the car, all will be ok and the people will be satisfied. These are the true opiates of the people.

[CRH]

146. Careful my friend, ...

You have just countered a ton of scientific gibberish above, with common sense. Don't forget to add mindless frivolous consumption, to the opiates listed above.

[candice]

91. We the people can take action, but cutting our energy drastically...

that will send a message (and reduce profits as well as greenhouse emissions). Do all of the things that you can to get your own usage down. We are the government we need to have.

Combine trips, drive less, bike and walk more. Replace bulbs with CFL and turn off all lights, but turn off computers and TVs and those flashing LEDs at the source when not in use (power-switch might be enough, but I unplug if I am gone for more than a day. Dry your clothes using solar power (clothes lines). Buy recycled products. Use vinegar/baking soda to clean. Frequent farmers markets and grow your own veggies, if you can. Buy fresh and in season. The average bite of food should not have to travel 1500 miles! Brag about your low utility bills--that gets others to make slight changes.

Bu$h can blow off the rest of the world regarding global warming, urge us to be patriot and shop, subsidize SUV purchases, etc., only if those he was appointed 5-4 to "serve" follow him.

[tabasco]

54. No problem! Bush will appoint somebody who doesn't believe in science.

Problem solved!

Except for those of us who live on Earth.

[mod mom]

58. DON'T WAIT FOR OTHERS TO ACT:

We can't wait for a new administration to take action and we need to do more than just change our personal lifestyles so GET ACTIVE!

I am in the process of starting a Sustainability group in my community (13,000 person suburb). I have recruited several attornies, a city council member, several professors including one that teaches Environmental Law. We aim to educate residents and advocate policy that will make a difference. Please join me in doing the same in your community!

[Lorien]

74. My mother-a RW born again-is involved in one in Columbus, OH

if people like her can find enthusiasm for a simple living/ sustainability group, then surely DUers can too!

Her group meets weekly and discusses ways to cut energy use,get more out of life by consuming less, organic gardening, recycling, raising public awareness, etc. They're even looking into creating a straw bale home builders group.

[RestoreGore]

129. Good for you

I am doing the same in my community and wrote an entire synopsis of this crisis and what we can do about it in my community paper as well as letters to my Mayor and city council and I will definitely be following up on it. People must begin taking action on their own in order to make a difference. I just hope we aren't too late. Glacier melt is a sure sign that the tipping point is being reached rapidly.

[JPZenger]

60. What's NASA Doing Studying the Earth? They are Supposed to be getting a guy to Mars.

King George decreed that NASA should make it a priority to get men on the Moon, in order to build a base to get men to Mars. To do that, they had to divert funds from essential research concerning the Earth. They shouldn't have any money left to get involved in global warming - they should be wasting it all on a worthless mission.

[NotGivingUp]

64. he's looking for a way to save his own ass...as usual. nt

[deweyp]

102. They're studying Global Warming

here on earth becuase they heard it's happening on Mars too. One can't be too ready. :)

[MasonJar]

70. On page three of the story there is a news video on breast cancer

and pollutants that is worth viewing.

[Lars39]

84. Thanks, MasonJar.

:hi:

[gravity]

75. Yet we keep on driving

[candice]

89. ...plug-in hybrids charged with solar panels on our homes...

...step 1. Non-CO2-emitting driving beats hybrids. Most of our trips can be covered by solar with a plug-in. I'm waiting to buy that car.

[gravity]

92. yet we keep driving...

[deweyp]

100. Last time I checked

driving still had a lot to do with eating.

[deweyp]

99. The problem is

that the solar cells are making power during the day while my car is elsewhere.

Even if we feed the excess into the grid during the day, the grid would collapse if everyone plugged in a car at night.

[gobblechops]

124. you didnt understand

"that the solar cells are making power during the day while my car is elsewhere.

Even if we feed the excess into the grid during the day, the grid would collapse if everyone plugged in a car at night."


Solar is extra energy not the solution,hes not saying we should use solar only hes talking about stored energy that can decrease the consumption of polluting energy,the extra energy produced by solar for cars would be stored in batteries and the same can be used for houses.this is already done by the way it just needs to be made cheap for all of us.

[deweyp]

134. I thought he wanted to plug in his hybrid

which is why I mentioned that the power is generated by solar when the car is away.

Solar is actually great if you have a roof that faces the sun. During the day you can spin your meter backwards pushing power out into the grid and use free energy at night.

A 10 kwh unit costs about $40K installed, and depending on what state you're in, you can get Federal and State subsidies that will reduce the cost to about $10K. Not a bad deal.

I don't have one, but I'm starting to see them appearing here and there.

[LSK]

81. just think how far ahead we would be if Gore was President in 2000

[jimlup]

103. I eat my heart out every time I think about it.

In my humble opinion there would have been:

1. A significant chance of avoiding or minimizing the disaster of 9/11

2. The Katrina situation would still have developed but would have been much better managed.

3. The Iraq war would not have happened.

4. The supreme court would not be stacked 5:4 with conservative "constructionists".

4. Global Warming would still be a sigificant problem but there would be a chance that Kyoto and beyond would be really on the agenda.

On the other hand, congress might have gone totally flaming right wing republican... so who can say?
;)

[hunter]

106. It's tipped.

Taking bets now, which big U.S. city gets clobbered next?

[Uncle Joe]

107. And Dana Milbank with The Washington Post

believes we shouldn't have smart people in charge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3290772

Thanks for the thread Newsjock

Kicked and recommended

[StarryNite]

108. There's no such thing as global warming.

:sarcasm:

Mother Earth is not happy with us. And I don't blame her a bit.

:cry:

[sce56]

110. DRAFT GORE! We need a real leader to fix our screewed up err RAPED Mother Earth!

[RestoreGore]

127. Al Gore is drafting YOU to do it

We are reaching the tipping point and that is REAL, not a political slogan. It is time for evasive action now on the part of citizens, businesses and people pushing HARD in their own states and this government for action.

[kiteinthewind]

135. You are so right! We need a real passion in the WH to address this full force. Al is the one!

:toast:

[Nay]

115. Well! I guess Bushie boy better start firing all those lying NASA ppl!

Imagine that, trying to warn the public and all. The nerve. It might keep the sheep from shopping.

[Harper_is_Bush]

125. It is the most important issue we face. Bar none.

Sadly, I am losing my faith in the ability of humanity to rise and face it.

[RestoreGore]

130. I'm trying not to lose faith

My child must believe we have a chance to at least delay the worst effects, and that is why we must not give up... but I understand where you are coming from.

[Harper_is_Bush]

126. Notice how this isn't hitting the TV news? n/t

[RestoreGore]

128. But will this report hit the MSM?

[flyingfysh]

131. Bush administration is allowing NASA to say this?

I thought they were clamping down on things NASA scientists said to the public.

[Blue_Tires]

137. and people continue to cover their eyes and ears

[tiredofthisstuff]

139. White House Water Front Property

[Proud2BAmurkin]

141. yikes

:scared:

[intheflow]

143. Then THIS from NASA: "Not Sure Global Warming Is A Problem"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2864598

NASA obviously got the word to spin some damage control...