Global Warming irreversible, study says...

by shmody Jan 26, 2009 12:56PM PST

Global Warming irreversible, study says...

well..."essentially irreversible for ~1000 years".

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903
excerpt:
*****
"We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."

[...] But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming.
*****

I was wondering if/when this would come into the public light...

hmmm, bummer...

Best,
Shalin

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

It's certainly getting out there now

by milkky Jan 26, 2009 8:59PM PST

Today's WashingtonPost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602037.html?hpid=moreheadlines

- Collapse -

(NT) Smoke'em if you got'em.

by kwahhn Jan 26, 2009 11:00PM PST

- Collapse -

Global Warming irreversible, study says...

by wizkids32 Jan 27, 2009 6:33AM PST

So what we are dead and there is nothing to do so we don't need to do anything at all and beside Global Warming is false anyhow.

- Collapse -

don't belive its false but i belive its overdone

by mementh Jan 27, 2009 1:39PM PST

I personally don't belive its false but i belive its overdone. The enviroment has been taxed.. we don't recycle enough and it would be easy to get power via sun wind and water if we just sighed pulled in our gut and did it.

we have viable tech that can power cars and trains and trucks.
But because there is a huge startup expense we choose not to do it and pay more over the long term then it would be to do it.

About the polution, yes we should reduce it.. yes the earth can heal some from time. we just had a huge ammount of it done recently and it has not had enough time to filter out since we started dropping down the levels.

Then again i feel the "warming" is overblown when there are too many holes in the study.
From the temp guages put in the wrong places to people skewing the facts.

I think we should reduce and reuse and recycle more.
I think we need to set alot of ground rules for our data gathering and once everyone is in compliance and stays there we can trust the information thats given.

I don't think its irriversable... in fact there is no way its not, its how much it would cost to do it and how feesaible is it to do.

- Collapse -

Well

by Nicholas Buenk Jan 28, 2009 12:53AM PST

It is quite possible that we've already set off feedback mechanisms and it's too late to stop warming.

But, it will absolutely be certain that it will be irreversible if we give up now and do nothing.
That's defeatism.

- Collapse -

Nightmare scenario for accelerating global warming

by gcoryer Jan 28, 2009 6:18AM PST

The problem with global warming is that there are probably mechanisms we don't understand yet that can vastly affect the rate of warming. One recently discovered and rather worrying mechanism is the release of methane gas and methane hydrates from beneath melting permafrost under the warming oceans. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081219-methane-siberia.html
Yikes!
Gary

- Collapse -

From the article

by Steven Haninger Jan 28, 2009 9:58AM PST

"Scientists have been trying to advise politicians about finding an acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

And so Washington is supposed to start regulating carbon dioxide content on the whole planet now? They can't make any regulatory action stick for more than a few election cycles. CO2 has been higher even before the first automobile hit the dirt pathways. Surely it was a very high level of CO2 that produced the lush growth and Sinclair dinosaurs that are said to have produced all that oil and coal we have in the ground. Had that not happened, we'd be unable to loll at our computers and discuss this topic today. Man overestimates his own power over mom nature who's natural healing ability is by far stronger and more efficient. In an effort to make something clean, we must make something else dirty anyway. Give it up and enjoy the ride.

- Collapse -

It's not nature that's threatened obviously

by Nicholas Buenk Jan 29, 2009 8:00AM PST

But us, our cities and food production.

- Collapse -

Maybe so or maybe not

by Steven Haninger Jan 30, 2009 9:38AM PST

Maybe this will cause or accelerate a change in our genetic code that will continue some form of the species and maybe not. We are expendable like any other that's ever lived here.

- Collapse -

Nature always survives

by Nicholas Buenk Jan 30, 2009 12:43PM PST

Through all the disasters, asteroids. There are also events caused from natural releases of greenhouse gases. Nature always survives, but specfic species do not.

- Collapse -

Specific species don't survive?? Yep, you're right

by Steven Haninger Jan 31, 2009 3:36AM PST

I don't see any Triceratops around the neighborhood these days. Just never paid attention before.

- Collapse -

Limited Thinking

by Renegade Knight Feb 2, 2009 3:31AM PST

The short version (if I understood correctly) is that if we stop now it takes 1000 years to get back to where we were. They didn't say anything at all about carbon banking. Carbon banking being pulling methane and CO2 out of the air in a permanent format. Oil was one such permanent format. We can bank graphite for example.

Global Warming irreversible, study says...

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info